10-06-2015, 03:43 PM
What do you think -- guilty or not guilty?
![[Image: AR-151009825.jpg&MaxW=650]](http://www.recordnet.com/storyimage/SR/20151005/NEWS/151009825/AR/0/AR-151009825.jpg&MaxW=650)
Closing arguments wrapped up yesterday. Rebuttals are scheduled this afternoon. Judge Smith is expected to render his verdict shortly thereafter.
I think the defense did a good job attempting to establish reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge and pushing the alternate suspect/intruder theory.
It would have been harder for the defense if Isiah's blood/DNA had also been detected on the steak knife which prosecutors contend is the murder weapon (Leila's blood and DNA were detected on it; it had been washed on left in the family kitchen).
I don't think the defense's attack on the competency of the investigators and the coroner were very effective though. That's standard strategy for defense attorneys and, in this case, it doesn't appear to me that LE botched what they had to work with or jumped to a wrong conclusion and ran with it. LE searched and investigated the intruder possibility (and ruled it out) before charging Isiah Fowler with his sister's murder.
While Isiah's blood and/or DNA on the alleged murder weapon (or in the shower, or on clean-up materials, or on his clothing...) would have really strengthened the prosecution's case, I think the boy is guilty. Sometimes not much physical evidence is left behind even without a clean-up job. And, sometimes parents accidentally (or purposely) destroy evidence that incriminates their child.
If the judge finds Isiah guilty, he'll face incarceration in a juvenile facility until the age of 23.
Anybody think the kid is innocent or that the judge should find him "not guilty" based on the evidence presented?
Closing arguments wrapped up yesterday. Rebuttals are scheduled this afternoon. Judge Smith is expected to render his verdict shortly thereafter.
I think the defense did a good job attempting to establish reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge and pushing the alternate suspect/intruder theory.
It would have been harder for the defense if Isiah's blood/DNA had also been detected on the steak knife which prosecutors contend is the murder weapon (Leila's blood and DNA were detected on it; it had been washed on left in the family kitchen).
I don't think the defense's attack on the competency of the investigators and the coroner were very effective though. That's standard strategy for defense attorneys and, in this case, it doesn't appear to me that LE botched what they had to work with or jumped to a wrong conclusion and ran with it. LE searched and investigated the intruder possibility (and ruled it out) before charging Isiah Fowler with his sister's murder.
While Isiah's blood and/or DNA on the alleged murder weapon (or in the shower, or on clean-up materials, or on his clothing...) would have really strengthened the prosecution's case, I think the boy is guilty. Sometimes not much physical evidence is left behind even without a clean-up job. And, sometimes parents accidentally (or purposely) destroy evidence that incriminates their child.
If the judge finds Isiah guilty, he'll face incarceration in a juvenile facility until the age of 23.
Anybody think the kid is innocent or that the judge should find him "not guilty" based on the evidence presented?