It is a crazy trial and I am not really sure if she is guilty or not. The only reason i lean slightly to the side of not guilty is because of how mishandled the evidence was, the loss of the interrogation video and audio (really how do you not have a back up) as well the fact that it seems that the investigators had a theory and they spent the whole time focused on proving it without even giving a little consideration against the theory she didn't do it. It is always easy to prove what you believe, but if you can first prove what is opposite there is a good chance you are wrong and it feels like they went out of their way to prove they were right. and spent little to no time proving they might be wrong. Our brains are designed to look for patterns that often fit our own biases which is great for survival but not so great when it comes to deducing things. That is why scientist are always peer reviewed and always try to prove the opposite of their theory in order to prove their theory. Again not clue what the truth is but it sure seems to have been mismanaged from the beginning and never would have held up in Canada or the USA.
|