I finally had some time to watch the 20/20 Hannah Overton. The first two segments here and here seem to leave some doubt as to which way the case should have gone. This third segment, however, has some extremely troubling statements by both jurors and the prosecution. Both admit she was not guilty of a Capital Crime, and yet they turn around and say she was guilty of a Capital Crime. With illogical and irrational people serving on the jury and with overzealous prosecutors, who lie about what the primary family doctor stated, it would not have mattered if she had O.J. Simpson's lawyer crying "If the glove does not fit, you must aquit."
If you watch this video, you might need one of those Scooby Doo paper bags to yell in.
At approximately 2-1/2 minutes in this section a couple of jurors are interviewed. Keep in mind, these jurors found Hannah Overton guilty of Capital murder. Here is the relevant section transcribed.
20/20: "Do you think she intentionally withheld medical attention in order to kill that child?"
Juror #1: "That's something we will never know. I mean...We'll just never know that, because..."
20/20 "We heard a number of times you saying, 'We'll never know that', and so it raises the question of reasonable doubt. Is there any reasonable doubt in this case?"
Juror #2: "I don't think there is."
Now I know these things are edited and the original taping may give a different picture. Juror #1 states a contradiction to juror #2. Yet she would have to have voted for the guilty verdict...right? If 20/20 has any basic honesty at all, I simply have trouble reconciling these statements by these jurors.
The lead investigator admits also that Hannah Overton did not seek to murder the child. He states in the interview,
Investigator: "I don't think she woke up today and said 'Ok today is October 2. I am going to kill Andrew.' I think that she was trying to change his behavior."
20/20: "Capital murder by my understanding is not to change his behavior. It's intent to kill."
Investigator: "You're changing his behavior, and she's gonna be able to tell you the law part."
Perhaps 20/20 left out some juicy material that explains why the law says changing behavior equals intent to murder?
You may go back and listen to Chris Arnzen's radio program interviewing Pastor John Otis here (07) and here (08).
Weekend A La Carte (December 21)
9 hours ago
3 comments:
To this day I still come across people who say "She may not have meant to kill him be he is dead so she is guilty of murder."
WRONG!!!
She had to have KNOWN her actions or inactions would have resulted in his death in order for her to be guilty.
I often wonder if Hannah should have been charged with something. But I know she is not guilty of capital murder!
The jury also admitted as much after the trial.
I have yet to figure out how a woman who is said to not be guilty of a capital crime is still found guilty of a capital crime.
It is insane.
This story is heartbreaking. I remember watching it a few months ago, 20/20, 48 hours, I can't remember which. But I was in shock at the end of the program. Then Paul comes in and catches the tail end of it. I think he was flabbergasted, too, till he realized they lived in TX. The only halfway positive thing is that it sounded as though the church really stepped up to help meet the needs of this family. Always something to pray about!
~Shelly
Post a Comment