How can a jury (who all watch the same "facts") ever be divided? If facts are facts, and there is no place for interpretation, there should never be a hung jury. Every Prosecutor goes to trial with the "facts" he needs to convict, yet Defendants get acquitted. Some defendants get convicted on "facts," and spend decades in jail before new "facts" reveal he was wrongfully convicted. Doesn't change all those facts that got him convicted though, they're still "facts." People have different "opinions" on the outcome of the OJ trial because they interpreted the "facts" differently.
If facts were the final say, Science would stop at what we know today because, well... Facts. No need to question or look further when we have The Facts.
You made a lot of statements up there that you consider "facts." I'm not going to address them individually because it serves no valid purpose in this conversation, but my interpretation of some of those "facts" is different than yours. The facts are the same, the difference is in our interpretation of them.
It's not a zero-sum game. Me thinking I'm right, doesn't make you wrong and vice versa.
I guess that's why I don't understand the whole "STFU the kid wasn't murdered" mentality about this case. IMO, everybody's input is valuable in a discussion like this one - remember, I thought it was just a tragic PA accident until I did more research and became a "conspiracy theorist."
Some of the numpties on this thread may have even helped inform my opinion.
I'm always interested in reading different viewpoints and theories formed from collective experiences and diverse backgrounds of MDSers,
that's why I'm here. I post to share my thoughts and experiences and to elicit the same. I don't post to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong. I'm not the
AllKnowieBowie.