tryintofly t1_j5ta7e9 wrote
Reply to comment by MrBoliNica in TV Ratings: ‘Accused’ Starts Well on Fox After Huge NFL Lead-In - The Fox anthology drama posts the biggest series premiere of the season (8.71 million viewers) by Neo2199
I also don't really get why it was a demerit against him that they keep bringing up "he wanted to kill his own son!" Uh, you're saying he didn't do enough to stop him. By making it clear that he intended to kill him, it asks every one to put themself in his position and realize, yes, he did enough. This would vindicate him in the eyes of the public and the charges would quickly be dropped.
MrBoliNica t1_j5tfria wrote
And also…I didn’t realize it was illegal to give someone money and them committing a crime with it- even if you didn’t know about it. I guess they were trying to prove that because he read the book, he knew- but how can they prove that? Wouldn’t his wife (the only witness) have spousal privilege?
Like I said, of all the “crimes” he could have done, they chose the weakest one
rupay t1_j6bpjeh wrote
I think it makes sense from the prosecution. If he wanted to kill his own son then he knew his son was capable of doing something bad, but ultimately didn't do enough to stop him and even gave him the money which helped him carry it out
tryintofly t1_j6duyqg wrote
It's not a good strategy because it's playing a bluff on the jury. You can't present anything in a trial that's a roll of the dice, you only say stuff where you know what the outcome will be.
The second point is coming at it from a more reddity/social justice view point I feel, whether he went through with it or not or should have is irrelevant to the central notion of if he was an accessory, and this is just conjecture essentially.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments