Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Well no, I'm just saying that as the prosecution, you would present that case. You would craft a story for the rational minds to help understand the irrational. You would bring in experts that could explain what happened. A tougher cross examination on the psychiatrist that examined him, for instance, could have given a lot more insight to his mind.
Rather, as presented in the closing statements, the Crown was extremely willing to accept NCR as the only plausible reason. I'm not sure why a trial even happened in this case if that's all the Crown was willing to do.
|
Your first paragraph, yeah maybe. I didn't read much in depth after the first little bit of the trial and it became obvious pretty quickly that this guy had some serious issues happening.
For the perspective that the Crown "accepted" NCR as the only plausible explanation, why not? If all their evidence points this way, why would they try to fight for something that they don't believe to be the case (Murder 1)?
Isn't this pretty much as clean as a case like this could go? If they tried to fight for a murder verdict that they didn't believe in the first place, this could have been a terrible mess and a blemish on the face of the Crown for trying to prosecute someone as sound mind who so clearly wasn't.