Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Tom
The two sides never seek the truth. They just advocate on behalf of their clients and the jury has to do whatever they can to find reasonable doubt or not.
For instance IMHO, the entire attempt by the prosecution to deny the grief counsellor her expert status was a waste of time. Anyone can grieve in any way and it's entirely possible that you'd never know who was grieving or not. All well and good. All they had to do was ask her "Can you state factually whether or not this defendant was or is or will ever be grieving or show grief in any recognizable way?" Answer: No. "thank you no further questions".
The jury is not going to be schooled, during the trial of their lives, about grief no matter who says what. General info on grief was a waste of time and if anything, the jury will resent the prosecution for dragging it out for hours and hours. IMHO.
|
That's a prime example right there of how convoluted these kinds of trials get to become. Quibbling for days over who was grieving, or is the witness actually an expert in grieving etc. Christ shoot me now.
There is only ONE question that is relevant to a case like this and any like it, and it's not "who was grieving", or "What was her state of mind" or "Was she abused" etc. The ONLY relevant question is DID - SHE - DO - IT? As in was she negligent and/or responsible in any way for her little girl's death?
All this other side crap eating up days and weeks and untold millions of taxpayers money is just that --- crap.