Replies

Actually, in this particular case, I think a long wait is a relatively good sign for Zimmerman. Naturally, a quick not guilty is preferred, but if there are some factors that need to be debated, then consider this - which side do you think has more logic and facts to use in that debate to eventually convince the other side to change their vote?

In most other cases, there would be a lot of evidence on both sides. But I think the defense has a clear advantage on the evidence, which means in any prolonged deliberation, the movement would likely be in their direction. The only way Zimmerman gets convicted is if there were six dolts on the jury who all succumbed to their emotions, in which case a quick guilty verdict would have resulted. And we should all be relieved that this didn't happen. So now we wait, but as I said, we still have cause to be hopeful because the evidence is on our side, and I suspect one or two dolts on the jury are now being schooled by those who know how to follow the law.

Good post about the deliberations and I agree it's not a bad sign. If we hear of one or two jurors crying while "not guilty" is read we will know who the emotional ones were.

Sorry everyone for hijacking this cooking thread with a comment about the Zimmerman trial.

...but if there are some factors that need to be debated, then consider this - which side do you think has more logic and facts to use in that debate to eventually convince the other side to change their vote?

Logic? Facts?

We're talking six women here...

Ducking & covering...