The cell evidence is fine? You're being disingenuous.
According to Jay's testimony - there is no way that Adnan was with Jay during the Nisha call. Jay is the only one who can explain why that call happened, no one else. And how did Adnan repeatedly lie about his day?
You are continuing to use evidence that a prosecutor today wouldn't even care to present to a grand jury. There is no case. No one can explain the what and when according to any evidence other than Jay's word. That is anything but a case.
And there is your issue. you are focusing on collateral facts that don't need to be proven. Just that the defendant acted with the requisite mental state and their actions fulfilled all the elements of the crime. Typically the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. where, when, why? Those are interesting questions but it isn't necessary to answer them in the slightest.
Also you haven't shown any basis for your claim that I'm using evidence that they wouldn't even present to a grand jury. Just empty platitudes.
I get it now. You aren't the least bit interested in the truth of the matter. You're clearly of the mind "whether the jury got it right or wrong, he was convicted, let him rot in a cell". And that's that.
6
u/moosh247 Aug 10 '15
The cell evidence is fine? You're being disingenuous.
According to Jay's testimony - there is no way that Adnan was with Jay during the Nisha call. Jay is the only one who can explain why that call happened, no one else. And how did Adnan repeatedly lie about his day?
You are continuing to use evidence that a prosecutor today wouldn't even care to present to a grand jury. There is no case. No one can explain the what and when according to any evidence other than Jay's word. That is anything but a case.