UPD. Guilty. He’s been convicted unanimously.
***
I have absolutely no clue why I am so invested in this case: maybe because it looks so alien that it feels like a reasonable distraction from all the ongoing horrors which I don’t want to mention, and also it’s an oddly satisfying way to procrastinate when you need to finish several projects at once.
It’s simultaneously a total train wreck and a fascinating exercise in learning a bit more about the rural American South. By the way, about this whole Low Country (or is it Lowcountry?) thing: can it be regarded as an American version of our Fenland, just much warmer? After all, it’s all swamps and remote tiny islands...
Today’s closing arguments, both from the defence side and the state, were weirdly wonderful: it seems I was in the tiniest minority of people who thought that the defence lawyer did a decent job (although a bit chaotic in terms of consistency)—straight to the point and moderately convincing (if you still have reasonable doubts that this sociopath somehow isn’t guilty), but he was roasted in the comments on the Law & Order chat for being “dull and non-dramatic, unlike the prosecutor”—everything I find absolutely preposterous in the court presentation.
But the state presenter (was he a high-ranked bureaucrat of sorts? The attorney general or something?) was awful: what a bombastic cringe fest, full of bravura sentimentality and fake drama! What the hell?! Why is this accepted as a way of talking about a criminal case in court?! You surely can be sympathetic to the victims without using baby talk, like “she was trying to reach her baby” (and it’s about a 22-year old man) etc.? Is it a Southern thing or what? I am totally confused.
Waiting for the jury reaching their verdict (my guess he will be convicted but what would I know).
No comments :
Post a Comment