> I also saw that documentary and when it was over I found
> myself convinced that Spector was innocent.
> ...
> After hearing these facts, I couldn't see Spector as being
> guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury had seen the
> documentary, Spector might be a free man today.
Like I said in my post, the interviewer was obviously pro-Spector and appeared to have known him for some time. So you have to take that into account. Also, the documentary was what, an hour long?, but the trial went on for weeks and months. I think we can assume that the jury saw a whole lot more evidence than we did. So, whilst I agree that from the viewing of the documentary he appeared to be innocent, the jury would have been in a much better position to make the correct judgement. Whether they did or not is of course another question.
> I wonder if the facts about the victim were even presented
> to the jury.
Do you think Spector's lawyer was completely incompetent? You've got to assume that she presented all the favourable evidence available to her.
Dave
|
