looked at the defendant and nodded her head, and used her eyes to say "yes, you did it." The jurors became emotionally possessed with an epiphany of guilt, where such a sudden lightbulb, an "a-ha" moment, could not have come from any testimony or evidence in the courtroom. It was a circumstantial case, bolstered by jailhouse witnesses with 22 felonies and crimes of dishonesty between them, who got their sentences reduced for saying what they said, and who came across as biased and creepy. Even someone who managed to be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, had no reason to be joyous about the conclusion like the alternate was, given the murky circumstances. Nobody could have given serious contemplation to what they heard in a six-day f1rst-de gree murder trial, with no physical evidence of the contents of Mandi Jackson's mind, in under two hours of deliberations. Maybe it was just that, the absence of any indications of the contents of Mandi's mind, the perjury by Neisha Cintron that erased the whole night, the refusal by the judge to show the weed in the kitchen. Put simply, there was nothing in the courtroom to convince them of Mandi's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more than a hunch, and it didn't matter. So, a jury has the right to kill people because they feel like it, and no judge, or in this case no prancing legal secretary, is going to stop them. It's a killing world, and jurors come from it and will return to it. They want to kill someone's daughter based on a hunch, that is their business. People kill young girls, and that is that. Stone probably knew the jury would look online and see Mandi supposedly got caught with a gun in Georgia, which was not even hers. So Stone made sure to emphasize to the jury the revolver was Mandi's gun, which is completely ridiculous. I guarantee you those jurors looked Mandi up online. I would bet my eyeballs on it against a doughnut. And I guarantee the top to the bottom of the page was covered with the word "GHB." I don’t know if you would be allowed to pre-try during jury selection with the following questions to individual jurors: 1. If you use a guy’s credit cards, that doesn't mean you murdered him. 2. If you go from guy A to guy B and back to guy A, that doesn't mean you were with guy A the whole time. 3. If police you accused you of something, that doesn't mean it happened, not in Florida or any other state you may read about. Everybody in the jury box agrees with that? There was another important thing. Prosecutor Stone pretried the case during jury selection, by telling jurors to fill in circumstantial evidence with standard events. He basically told jurors if you see storm clouds, and then later the ground is wet, it must have rained. I would ask the jurors how many rain storms have you seen? And how many times have you met Mandi Jackson or James Mulrenin? Stone used a similar metaphor during juror screening and qualification at Scott’s trial. He said if there is a cabin and a fresh snow, and there are footprints to the cabin but not away, you know there is someone in the cabin. I would point out to jurors they are not at the cabin. The person could have walked backward through his footprints like in “The Shining”. There could be footprints leading away behind the cabin, and the cop did not see them. Or the cop could just be lying to you about what was at the cabin. Imagining, to substitute for what you don’t know, is not proof IV-82