by C.L. Phillips
Admit it - you followed this trial. Maybe you didn't watch the video or listen to Nancy Grace, but you know about it. For those of you under the Cone of Silence for the last three years, here's the condensed version : two year old child goes disappears for thirty days or so before mother reports her missing. Body is found five months later within several hundred feet of the family home. Trial begins with outlandish opening statements designed to provide alternative suspects and place the defendant, the child's mother in the role of long suffering victim. Until the lawyer wised up and told the jury during closing arguments, "My client is a liar and a sl*t, but you can't convict her for that." And finally the judge gives the jury instructions that define reasonable doubt as more than some doubt.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't care if the mother is found guilty or not. What I'm more interested in discussing is this question : "WHAT happened in the JURY room?"
Really. What were they thinking? Do you suppose the twelve members of the jury went into the room and said, "Alright, we've been sequestered for forty-five days. Who wants to go home tomorrow?" Imagine how that could frame the deliberations. Or maybe eleven said guilty, one said "No way, I'm never voting guilty." And then everyone caved to go home?
You know I always thought O.J. Simpson got off because of the "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" line from Johnny Cochran. But this trial had none of that. All the fireworks happened in the opening statements, none of it poetic.
So what do you think happened in the JURY ROOM? And if you were writing this murder mystery from the point of view of the defense lawyer - what was his last meeting with his client like? Did he gaze into the eyes of a murderer and say, "You know, you might want to get your tubes tied?"
Give me your favorite denouement for this mystery.