My problem with this case is that (1) We don't know the lady is dead, (2) If we assume she's dead, we don't know she was murdered, and (3) is we assume she was murdered, we don't know who did it.
Nothing proves my point more today than the prosecutor's argument during the punishment phase today.
In summation, prosecutor Cary Piel told jurors that he was not going to presume to tell them the number of years they should assess as punishment.
He told them to close their eyes and imagine the murder.
"You don’t want to do it, but you have to,” he said so quietly that those not in the jury box barely heard him.
“You know it was some sort of hand-to-hand thing.”
He said she likely knew she was dying and suffered.
What a load of crap. If every juror, at that moment, didn't realize they have no idea what happened because the government failed to prove it to them, they aren't smarter than a 5th grader. But I think the prosecutor realizes that.