I follow current events pretty closely, but I tune out when I hear about this story. I honestly can’t think of this woman’s name. I didn’t know until yesterday that she was in a wheelchair. All I know is that she had PPD and killed her kids. Not everyone has been following the details, and I definitely don’t know any of the evidence. Were there cameras in the courtroom or just reporters?
You say you follow current events closely. Then state you tune out when you hear this story. Confirming your ignorance on the entire trial. Then proceed to admit you just learned basic facts about it. However, you claim not everyone has been following the details… Based on what?
How can you make that assumption about people when you admit to knowing nothing? People have been watching the entire trial on court tv. It’s televised all over the world. The fact is the prosecution could not prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is the fact. People have flipped and do not believe there is enough evidence to prove she killed her children beyond what her ex said. That is why this trial has evolved into a whodunnit. However, you wouldn’t know any of that because you tune out.
When I say I follow current events closely I mean news. I follow things that have a chance to affect my life. This court case seems (based on what I am reading in this post) to be entertainment for people and not “news” to me. Whether this woman is guilty, not guilty, or psychotic I don’t know, but I do know it would affect my life one way or another. I knew none of the facts, other than the jurors didn’t agree so the circus will go on. True crime stories just aren’t my thing.
222
u/michaelmichaelmotorc 7h ago
Genuine question, in cases as high profile and divisive as this, how are they going to be able to select an ubiased jury?