The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he “didn’t have any doubts” that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.
“Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it,” Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.
The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberating.
Not to be a dick, but:
He’s literally saying the opposite of “I have doubts” still here, he’s saying “I have no doubts but these other people are interupting me like I do have doubts.”
Now, that still seems like a dumb fucking thing to say, but he’s not contradicting his doubtlessness, he’s saying he’s being doubted, that “as if” is very important for context.
I think that if a juror is pushing different possible theories, they have reasonable doubt.
That and the following statement from another juror:
OH I see what you mean.
Yeah but in this context “reasonable doubt” is a very specific thing and “doubt” is just the concept, so, “he does not doubt that he has a reasonable doubt regarding her innocence” actually, as dumb as it sounds, could possibly be the valid interpretation of his statements.
But regardless, that second statement (from the post I replied to ykwim lol) doesn’t mean “I had doubts,” it means the literal opposite.
Also he could just be lying anyway, but those two OG statements quoted aren’t (at least necessarily) contradictory.
“I’m not sure if she bashed his head in with a hammer, or a lead pipe, or a candlestick, but I am sure she bashed his head in.”
This is a person describing three different possible theories, without admitting to reasonable doubt of criminal culpability.