Since it seems that several of us have been following the Widmer trial, I thought I would attempt this poll again. I did it during the first trial and I found the results interesting to say the least. So.... [Poll]
I would also be interested in knowing who has actually been following the trial as opposed to just catching things on the news and in the paper
The results from this poll amaze me. Since I obviously have a strong opinion about this case (not guilty), I am very interested in hearing why those who say guilty think he's guilty. How much of the trial are you following?
I truly do not know how I would vote as a juror, but I have to say, unless we're in the courtroom, we're not hearing and seeing everything. To be honest, I have gotten a definite idea of some of the opinions of some of the reporters from reading the news coverage, and this is coming from a newspaper reporter. I don't have any stake in the case, so I'm not particularly passionate about it, but I could see how reasonable people could go either way.
The results from this poll amaze me. Since I obviously have a strong opinion about this case (not guilty), I am very interested in hearing why those who say guilty think he's guilty. How much of the trial are you following?
Sara - Do you truly believe he is innocent? Or do you think he should be found not guilty because the State did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Do I think there's enough admissable evidence to prove that he did it? Probably not.
Do I think the prosecutors in this case are morons? Definitely.
EXACTLY! My question was not whether you think he did it. It is whether or not you would convict him of a crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. I think there is too much reasonable doubt in this case for a guilty verdict. That is the way the justice system works. Like it or not.
Do I think there's enough admissable evidence to prove that he did it? Probably not.
Do I think the prosecutors in this case are morons? Definitely.
I'm torn but lean at not guilty.
Either way, I do not think there is enough admissable evidence to prove, or to make a jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it. Where is it?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
The results from this poll amaze me. Since I obviously have a strong opinion about this case (not guilty), I am very interested in hearing why those who say guilty think he's guilty. How much of the trial are you following?
Sara - Do you truly believe he is innocent? Or do you think he should be found not guilty because the State did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
I'm 95% sure he's innocent. However, the state did not make their case. Regardless, he's not guilty in my book. You can't put a man in prison for life with absolutely no evidence.
I only "know" what I see on the news and read in papers, but I find it interesting that he will not take the stand...and for me personally that says a lot. If you stand by the fact that you didn't do it...why not take the stand?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: NBR Poll re Widmer Trial
I will admit I didn't follow much of it until this trial. I do have an opinion though based on what I have 'seen' so far.
If it's not my opinion then it's wrong
Totally kidding but I can get very fired up about this. lol
I am pretty sure I know where you stand. My lips are sealed as to my thoughts
HA! Exactly
It's how to keep me as a friend 
The results from this poll amaze me. Since I obviously have a strong opinion about this case (not guilty), I am very interested in hearing why those who say guilty think he's guilty. How much of the trial are you following?
Photo by Melissa Nicole Photography
Sara - Do you truly believe he is innocent? Or do you think he should be found not guilty because the State did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Do I think he did it? Probably.
Do I think there's enough admissable evidence to prove that he did it? Probably not.
Do I think the prosecutors in this case are morons? Definitely.
EXACTLY! My question was not whether you think he did it. It is whether or not you would convict him of a crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. I think there is too much reasonable doubt in this case for a guilty verdict. That is the way the justice system works. Like it or not.
I'm torn but lean at not guilty.
Either way, I do not think there is enough admissable evidence to prove, or to make a jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it. Where is it?
I'm 95% sure he's innocent. However, the state did not make their case. Regardless, he's not guilty in my book. You can't put a man in prison for life with absolutely no evidence.