A Court Room Observor Sides with the Jury

I believed that the defendant was not guilty, because there was not enough substantial evidence to consider the defendant guilty. The killing happened within 15 minutes. The defendant had no blood on her. I personally believe that if she would have done it she would have had blood somewhere on her. You can’t hit someone in the head with a rock that size and have no blood on you. The horse meat being in her hamburgers was not enough of a motive to kill someone.

The defendant had a finger print on the rock but she was well known for cleaning up around her restaurant. The finger print was the only evidence there was against Sandy Townsend. There were also teens seen outside during the time that they were supposed to be in school.  The group of teenagers should have been questioned. If the defendant would have committed the murder, she would have had to pick up the body herself and put it into the dumpster, which makes it hard to believe she could have done it on her own.

The defendant didn’t like homeless people, but she did rent out her house for a discounted cost to some people that were homeless.  This leads me to believe she didn’t have too many problems with the homeless. The people that she rented to, though, did have a criminal background. I don’t think there was enough evidence to consider the defendant guilty even though she possibly could have been. 

I am convinced that the defendant is not guilty until proven otherwise. This was a tough case for the jury to decide in favor of a conviction because there were not enough facts and evidence against Sandy. 

Aritcle submitted by MSTC Student, Chealsie