(08-23-2018 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 09:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

Did you hear the reports that only one juror held out on the 10 counts they didn't convict him on? So 8 counts were 12-0 and 10 counts were 11-1. That's pretty overwhelming IMO.

I heard that. I'm just trying to reconcile that to the evidence that I heard about. What evidence do you think led to the convictions? Trying to figure out what I missed hearing about. As I said, I didn't follow this one closely.

I did not follow it closely either. There were no cameras in the courtroom, so relying on slanted pundits it not exactly beneficial to any observer trying to get an objective take on things.