Why is it that people arguing about this case insist on leaving their own common sense out of it... eh Fuji?
The evidence at a trial is always like a bunch of dots in a puzzle... the dots are usually clear enough to see and understand, but "the trick" is to link them together to see the picture that they reveal... and you have to link all the dots, not just the ones that you like or prefer while leaving the others out.
In the linking of those dots a person is supposed to use reason, common sense, reasonable possibilities and probabilities, life experience as to how things happen, logic, etc.... unless, of course, s/he was present and actually witnessed the events.
What do you think is the most probable and/or most likely explanation, for example, of the dots "Arizona Watermelon drink," "Skittles," and his Internet posts about lean?
I am not saying that this is conclusive of what we can infer about this case, but if your common sense, experience and knowledge leads you to the conclusion (that is, linking the dots) that all that is mere coincidence, then I want to offer to sell you the George Washington Bridge: how much are you willing to pay?
Does any one think that TM's character is irrelevant to what may have been going on in his mind at the time? If he were a brilliant Harvard prodigy with an unblemished record and a history as a pacifist, would that mean anything to you in trying to figure out (link the dots) what may or most likely have happened?
Perry
