11-26-2012, 03:33 PM
I like Jeff Ashton and Dr. Arpad Vaas - both great thinkers, imo.
But, the prosecution should have focused more on the basics and devoted more time to the tangibles, like the computer forensics. They should have been pushing on the investigators for everything available.
Focusing too much on new science (like they did with the emerging technology for detecting human decomposition smell with Dr. Vaas) is risky, it can easily be too much for the jury to comprehend. I think it was a trial mistake, as was the shoddy job on computer evidence and testimony. The investigators overlooked these key browser searches and vastly overstated the number of searches on the other browser (and had to correct themselves during trial - that cost the prosecution and gave the defense a window to discount other evidence presented, imo).
Imo, it's similar to the amount of time and detail spent on what was then new DNA technology during the OJ Simpson trial. I could see the jury looking puzzled and bored with the in-depth scientific testimony. Today, the science is much more widely proven and accepted and easier to present, but back then it was still a pretty foreign concept.
It might not have made a difference in either verdict if the emerging science testimony had been kept simpler and more effort and focus had been placed on other tangible and circumstantial evidence, but it's something that I've pondered when I've tried to put myself in the shoes of a juror in both trials - the verdicts of which pissed me off too.
Not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback here, just thinking out loud. Shame these searches were missed and difficult to understand why.
But, the prosecution should have focused more on the basics and devoted more time to the tangibles, like the computer forensics. They should have been pushing on the investigators for everything available.
Focusing too much on new science (like they did with the emerging technology for detecting human decomposition smell with Dr. Vaas) is risky, it can easily be too much for the jury to comprehend. I think it was a trial mistake, as was the shoddy job on computer evidence and testimony. The investigators overlooked these key browser searches and vastly overstated the number of searches on the other browser (and had to correct themselves during trial - that cost the prosecution and gave the defense a window to discount other evidence presented, imo).
Imo, it's similar to the amount of time and detail spent on what was then new DNA technology during the OJ Simpson trial. I could see the jury looking puzzled and bored with the in-depth scientific testimony. Today, the science is much more widely proven and accepted and easier to present, but back then it was still a pretty foreign concept.
It might not have made a difference in either verdict if the emerging science testimony had been kept simpler and more effort and focus had been placed on other tangible and circumstantial evidence, but it's something that I've pondered when I've tried to put myself in the shoes of a juror in both trials - the verdicts of which pissed me off too.
Not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback here, just thinking out loud. Shame these searches were missed and difficult to understand why.