Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
I was a spectator through most of the Gregory murder trial and, like Mr. Gregory himself, was shocked with disbelief to hear the jury's almost incomprehensible verdict. All week I’ve been trying in my own mind to understand how 12 of my common sense Rappahannock friends and neighbors were so easily led to believe that the wife, and not the killer, should be put on trial.
A jury's duty is to reach its verdict by applying the law to the facts. In this case, the basic facts were never in dispute. Ted Gregory was a jealous and depressed man. For four months after they stopped living together, he followed his estranged wife. He used disguises and highpowered binoculars. He carried loaded pistols. One night he followed her to the home of a man she'd been seeing. He parked down the road, took off his boots, and broke into the bedroom, shooting. Not exactly a defense attorney’s dream.
So the defense did the only thing it could do. The defense decided to present Ms. Dana’s conduct and character as the real cause of the tragedy. And the defense succeeded, but not solely by its own efforts.
The head of the defense team. Mr. Howard, is a dramatic and aggressive trial lawyer. He quickly provoked an outburst from Ms. Dana that showed her to be the loud, unsubmissive woman he was trying to portray. He paraded a host of welldressed, likable character witnesses on his client’s behalf. His objections to damaging testimony were frequent and effective. He kept his client off the stand. During closing arguments, he
86.1%