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.