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 6 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
the girl and that only two people know what really happened. He admitted that the big problem with the case was that the girl did not say anything for so long. “She carried that around with her,” he said, adding. “She did not get this way by nothing happening to her.”
Mr. Luke said that the defense could not explain why the girl would pick on the defendant. “Why does she decide all of a sudden in 1995 to pick on him? Why would she put herself through the trauma and sit before 12 people she does not know?” he asked.
There was no motive for the girl to fabricate a lie, said Mr. Luke.
In his closing argument, Mr. Clark said that he was not suggesting that the girl made the allegations against Mr. Stewart because they were false. “I won’t say she is lying. I think she believes it. That is the tragedy of this case,” he said. Regardless of what the doctors say, he told the jurors, use your common sense. “Is this creative memory or a recollection of events that actually occurred?” he asked the jurors.
Two of the jurors were interviewed for this article. Both said that after electing a foreman, a poll of the jurors was taken. In answer to the question whether they thought the defendant was innocent, all raised their hands immediately.
One juror felt the girl remembered too many details to be believable and that it seemed too long a time before the girl reported it.
Another juror believed the defendant had been wronged and that the mother of the girl was the one to blame, that she had implanted the ideas in the child’s mind. That juror also mentioned the lack of emotion shown by the girl when she testified. The juror said, “I think justice was served.”
95.4%