I've always liked Clemons and Bell had an okay year last season. But I want some depth there. Maybe Wilson will play both secondary positions.
Dude, its common sense. The jurors had one witness(HIS AUNT) no murder weapon, so it was a lack of evidence. And saying it was the boyfriends gun sounded like BS also, but who was going to argue it wasnt? But it goes back to the proven facts wich their are none so he gets off scott free. The investigator in the article sure didnt sound like it was justice and his job is to investigate so Im going to lean toward his side on this one. Orenthal Simpson was found "not guilty" too but people can figure it out for themselves. I know he is a Dolphin and I hope he comes in dominating camps but I still wont be blinded enough to believe that friggin story.
I know one Rook who won't be carrying pads this training camp.. Agree with Stitiches, 23 of 24 jurors heard all of the evidence and found him not guilty, what else is Wilson supposed to do to affirm his innocence?
Lack of the murder weapon means nothing at all, it was agreed that he did not bring the rifle with him, and the man died from a GS wound from that rifle, and 1 witness also means nothing as the facts of the case were not in dispute the Aunt did not say Wilson was coming over for a Bible study. Your choice, they tried him twice, they clearly thought he was guilty, they can think whatever they want, the Jury found him not guilty. I'm more interested that the man be treated fairly no matter if he is a Dolphin or not, he did not do it, end of story.
The justice system isn't always right and you're making no logical sense atm. Check out Eric Frimpong's story if you think the Justice System is infallible and prosecutors are always right.
I agree. In this case I will agree with the investigator of the crime instead of Dolphins fans or a jury that is not allowed to act on common sense. Maybe he is innocent...I just seriously doubt it.
Technically you are. Through the justice system he was found innocent, you say he wasn't. That's an argument about the judicial system.
There are all kinds of plausible reasons why the weapon wasn't found. The moment the dude bit the dust till the moment the first law enforcement personnel arrived, the crime scene was hardly able to have been kept sterile. Any number of people could have had access to that gun, and took it, for reasons known only to them. As far as I'm concerned, reading just a newspaper article does not give any of us enough evidence to decide either way if he did it or not. The best thing we got to go by is 23 of 24 jurors said not guilty. That is good enough for me and should be good enough for anyone else here.
