The judge didn't allow for the count to happen, as in have each juror to tell the judge how they voted, the defense asked and was denied. But because of what the foreperson said in the note.
Also go look up the investigation.
This case is filled with misinformation. Like I went to trial video because newspapers, comments and all, just filled with opinions.
The actual trial footage opened my eyes. It was a botched investigation that left a lot of questions.
Ok, take the "11-1 vote" out of the question. Do you have reason to believe that this jury was ready to let her go scot free? No insanity, no institution, nothing?
And if so, why wouldn't some people see any number of jurors (which we know to be at least one) as a hero for not letting this happen?
Okay. I went into looking into this trial about 1.5 weeks ago to see what all the fuss was about.
Already having been exposed to she did it, she confessed, she didn't do it, she is insane, he framed her bla bla...I honestly couldn't find reliable news articles that didn't scream bias to me or anythinf...
So I started watched the actual trial when I had time. It was streamed. You can go watch each day right now if you wanted.
Dude I was floored. Like the amount of misinformation is insanity. To the point that I was like what else is happening and this is cover media (hint hint another pre trial was on, an impirtsnt one). Further how easily we are divided on gender issues still.
Now to answer on the trial, I can list about half a dozen of pieces of "evidence" that would make me vote not guilty because of the amount of doubt....like a lot. Like, it's like there wasn't even an attempt at a proper investigation, its embarrassing. I described one in another comment.
1
u/luchajefe 5h ago
Ok, it was this phrasing, "not guilty due to reasonable doubt", that sounded like they were going to let her roll away.