In spite of years of watching Crown Court, Rumpole of the Bailey, LA Law, The Practice and Ally McBeal, I am not sure that I am an expert on matters legal.
So the Kissel case has me rather puzzled. The defence case appears to be that Robert Kissel was - how can I put this delicately - a merchant banker. The prosecution case is that Nancy Kissel used a heavy metal ornament to kill her husband, which she has now admitted under cross-examination. How on earth do juries reach a verdict based upon such conflicting evidence?
I think Hemlock is confused as well.