That is what I heard in today's testimony, which refutes one of the contentions often floated by the "DAW is Innocent" faction.
A few have suggested that the chance is small, for all of the damning evidence against DAW to have been "coincidence." In other words, that it has a low probability.
I predict a hung jury. I cannot predict a vote count. I expect some jurors will see it as you do.
I believe the folks on this thread who maintain that DAW is innocent are not representative, of an average jury, hearing all of the evidence as presented in court. The evidence as presented in court is much different than the totality of discussion on this thread.
The DAW is Innocent faction make many excellent points, on some items of evidence; on others they are weak.
I give you credit for hanging in there, absorbing the ridicule. Many intelligent posters have left, after a day or two, because of the juvenile tone and ridicule.
I'm waiting for the balance of the trial, including how both sides conclude.
Not being an attorney, I don't see that either side wins, based on attorney performance. Maybe that will change.
At the end, I might conclude for "reasonable doubt"; I don't know yet. If the criteria was "preponderance of evidence," I feel it meets that test, at this point. (I know the former is the standard, so I don't need correcting).
Why would Feldman bring on a computer expert to testify when that testimony can be so easily refuted by Neal?
There´s been no attempt AFAIK for Feldman to explain the DNA evidence or for Dusek to explain the method of abduction. No Barb, which most likely means she would be a disaster for either side.
I haven't read all the testimony, but I guess the CD's and ZIP disks had no writing on them, or couldn't be compared in the way they were stored or archived to other CD's or disks.
The child porn revelations blows any sympathy I have for DAW out the patooty. I don't find the Van Dam's particularly forthright. I'm not saying sympathy matters, I mention it because I don't think any party in this case has exhibited a consistent pattern of behavior that I could consider trustworthy.
I would say if Dusek can explain the 'bug' evidence, DAW is found guilty, otherwise a hung jury, as you suggest, and a 'do over' when more evidence is available.
And ?, what ever happened to the drunkeness issue that was to be a major part of the defense?
longjack
Well it's a tough job but SOMEONE has to do it! :->
>>>Many intelligent posters have left, after a day or two, because of the juvenile tone and ridicule.<<<
They shoudn't have. The ridicule is all part of the fun.