Uncensored Justice System Discussion

BillE · Joined: 14 Dec 2007 Posts: 4 Location: Chicago NW Suburbs

I took the liberty of copying a post I made over on the CTV Board in response to a poster's challenge. It summarizes my own experience with this case, and why I continue to be very interested in following it to a resolution that I earnestly hope goes in Cindy's favor.

****************

"I'll take you up on your request that I explain my perspective. I'll try to do it briefly so as not to take up too much space on this post.

I watched as much of the trial as possible on CTV, but I did not subscribe to Extra, so I missed some of it. I did see/hear testimony from many of the witnesses and when I heard the prosecution's own presentation of the science from their own witnesses, it became obvious to me there were some serious questions as to DMA versus MMA levels in the samples. Also the fact that the levels were so very high as to be unreasonable combined with chain of custody discussion led me to suspect flaws in the science as it was presented. Then I realized that if there were such high levels of DMA present in the liver and kidneys how is it possible that the blood and urine samples were completely normal being as how the body filters the blood in the liver, delivers waste to the kidneys for elimination in the urine. How was there not elevated levels in those samples? Then I realized the serious potential for a lab contamination error.

I then watched the "character" witnesses, and while appreciating the sensationalism of their testimony, it pointed me nowhere but to a woman who behaved in an unusual manner but not abnormally so, and certainly not illegally.

Then I was struck by the inability of anyone participating in the trial to connect CS with the arsenic.

Come time for jury deliberation, I felt there would be people feeling strongly she was guilty, and there would be people feeling just as strongly, the evidence could not lead them to a guilty conclusion. I had anticipated a hung jury. But much to my surprise it came back as a guilty verdict.

I had been following some of the comments in this forum during the trial, but thought I would rather reach my own opinion independently of the forum.

After the verdict, I read the threads from top to bottom. I ran across posts by people who understood the scientific procedures involved and they were completely astounded at how the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt what they did. As a matter of fact, these knowledgable people were skeptical that a crime had even been committed.

So I began to research in earnest. I read the references offered by people who knew the scientific theory; I read internet articles I found on my own, and I read the documents offered by experts in the field of forensic testing.

This research served to deepen my understanding of what had happened in this case and confirmed what I had thought prior to conducting any research.

So I just have a very difficult time moving beyond the science of this case as I believe it to be seriously flawed. Therefore the lifestyle testimony did nothing for me to confirm a crime had been committed or motive for such a crime.

I posted a number of days ago about a statement I had heard my Mother say to my Father back in the mid 1950's (both of my parents were psychologists) something to the effect of "NORMAL is only a setting on a washing machine; people are not machines," pointing out that normal behavior is manifested in many differnt ways and at different ends of a spectrum of "normal" behavior. No tidy neat little boxes to put ourselves in to explain our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

To summarize: The science has not proven to me a crime was committed; the science or the NCIS could not find any connection between CS and arsenic; the biology did not add up to my satisfaction; the assumption that young healthy people don't just die is wrong for I have personally seen it happen; the behavior, while not considered appropriate by many people, was not outside the bounds of normal behavior; and the behavior testimony did not accomplish any other purpose but to inflame and prejudice the jury just before they left for deliberation.

xxx (name deleted for privacy), that is as briefly as I could answer your request. I hope you can see my side of the fence. I do understand your side, I just cannot agree that anyone should have become publicly aware of her behavior for it contributed nothing (IMO) to the cause of the search for truth of this case."

Bill

RayStar · Joined: 14 Dec 2007 Posts: 52 Location: Detroit, MI

BillE thanks for the post. I always think you only have a short time to act foolish and that is when you are under 40. I don't feel CS' guilt was proven. Well we can't please everyone. Shoot, I did not feel grown-up until the age of 35 and I am nearing 60 now.
FREE CYNDI NOW FREE CYNDI NOW Zambeste cu gura deschisa

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

poodle · Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 3