Originally posted by smurfy
Whatever the events were, he will go to trial now and it will be a jury to decide.
how is he supposed to get a
FAIR trial? he has been pretty much convicted in the court of public opinion. it seems most people seem to think he
is guilty, (so much for "innocent until proven guilty, in a
COURT of LAW"), or some few who believe he is innocent, even fewer are unsure. so
how are they supposed to get an
impartial jury for the case when it seems most people's minds are already made up?
not to mention that
those few who question his guilt or have not made up their minds are either considered "crazy", or labeled as a "conspiracy theorist",and are
marginalized just because they DON'T think he is guilty.
they almost need a change in venue to ANOTHER COUNTRY, that has paid little attention
to the story to get a "fair trial".
seriously, who even here could truly claim to be impartial as a juror at his trial? i believe i could but i would not be eligible for it. yet at the
same time i may be a bit biased against the prosecution. in reality anyone who has even heard ANY news, or heard ANYTHING about the accused and
incident, should not be a part of the jury due to having preformed opinions about the case. now WHERE in the entire COUNTRY can we find any such
people?
here is an idea, have the jury entirely made up of Amish, there is at least a slight chance they haven't heard all about it.
i would have to agree that anything from his family is bound to have the whole he's innocent thing going. yet they
could be telling the truth.
who really knows for a
fact what the media has gotten from the FBI and police is the truth? the fact is BOTH sources can be considered suspect
in anything they say.they BOTH have agendas to push.
in all honesty we never should have heard about ANYTHING in this case other than "
we have a suspect", the
suspect has been
apprehended, and the
suspect is being questioned etc. by the same token they should not have released ANY information about the bombing other
that he fact it happened, the number of killed and wounded, etc. there should have been NOTHING about things like the device, what they found in the
suspect's apartment etc. then move the trial to another state that was not impacted by the incident. then at least there would have been a
possibility of him getting a "fair and impartial hearing". as it is like i said most people in the entire country have already made up their
minds about the case, and therefore unless they do something like an AMISH (i am rather proud i thought of that one
) jury his chance of
conviction no matter if he is guilty or not is almost assured.
