[Steve0113]

If the prosecution can't win with evidence like that, they shouldn't be presenting cases to juries on behalf of the state.

Unless, of course, there is powerful evidence contradicting it, which there was.

Take the bug evidence. Four -- count 'em -- FOUR experts testified that her body wasn't where it was found until two weeks after Westerfield was under constant surveillance. That's not "reasonable doubt"?

[marajade]

The jury discounted the "bug" evidence. That's what juries do... Juries discount evidence that doesn't fit with the conclusions they come up to... Have you ever served on a jury?

[FreeTheHostages]

Steve: Take the bug evidence. Four -- count 'em -- FOUR experts testified that her body wasn't where it was found until two weeks after Westerfield was under constant surveillance. That's not "reasonable doubt"?

I don't think you get it: we more than reasonably doubt that you're capable of relating accurately the damming evidence of guilt in this case. We have more than a mere scintilla of doubt that you are misrepresenting the facts. We have a huge doubt as to whether you are even conservative. All these things we doubt. But not Westerfield's guilt.

There, marajade, doesn't that just about sum it up?

[truth_seeker]

Take the bug evidence. Four -- count 'em -- FOUR experts testified that her body wasn't where it was found until two weeks after Westerfield was under constant surveillance. That's not "reasonable doubt"?

I am confident that the jury heard as much, or more, of the bug evidence, than you and I did. For all twelve of them, it apparently wasn't persuasive.

Now I can conclude several things. The jury is dumb, and you are smarter. Or vice versa. Or bug evidence isn't pure science. But for the jury, it wasn't the slam dunk the defense had promised, was it?