Wow. You saw the recreations that left out great ammounts of testimony and only showed what was interesting. He had a history which couldn't come in because it would bias the jury. That is a legit reason because it was never proven in the courts whether he did and to bring it in would serve solely to do that. Past convinctions can come in, but not acusations.Stinger said:
No, but she was one of the two main witnesses for the prosecution's case. She did lousy on the stand and was caught lying several times. The boy did pretty bad as well, but nothing in comparison to her.
You don't know about the legal system. Their job is not to prove he is innocent. In the American Justice System, the prosecutor has the burden of proof, not the other way aound as you are saying. You may have no respect for any defense attorney because rarely are they able to present one fact and say-let my client go. No, they build up a case of reasonable doubt usually until the jury can only find for them.
Whatever, they don't have to, some did, others didn't. Have fun analyzing them when you should be looking at the case and not the jurors.
Ah, now it makes sense.
guns_God_glory said:
guns_God_glory said:
How and why may I ask?BigMoose67 said:
ShamMol said:
The way it is set up to be is that everyone is entitled to representation. Now, in some cases where the client can't afford an attorney, one is appointed, but in the case of those who can afford legal representation, they can go out and shop for an attorney. It may not be great, but it is what it is and won't change because it is the only fair way.BigMoose67 said:
So your saying that it's okay to molest little kids as long as you can put an inkling of doubt into someones head. If common sense says he is guilty convict him is all I'm saying.ShamMol said:
Common sense has no place in the court room. They are only allowed to consider what evidence was in front of them. They aren't allowed to infer anything. They look at what is in front of them, they see the doubt, they see what both sides are saying and then they make their decision. They decided that there was way too much doubt on all the pieces of evidence that they had been shown. That is how the system works so it isn't just a rubber stamp system where the benefit of the doubt is given to prosecutors.BigMoose67 said:
I agree he has something wrong, but honestly, you can sleep in the same bed and not touch someone. Married couples do it all the time. Just because you think he is nuts for doing something you find sick, that doesn't make him automatically guilty. There is a system in place to find out if he is and it is not your place to say he is.
I never said anything about taking out the trail, instead make it actually mean something.Fu_chick said:
One case okay, definately not flawed.(yet)Fu_chick said:
BigMoose67 said:
ShamMol said:
I really suggest you learn about the legal system and the evidenciary rules for court. It will save you a lot of time. Many of the sh*t you talk about can't be allowed into the case, no matter who you are because it is predujicial, it isn't substantiated, it was illegally obtained, etc, etc. They can't use common sense, I said it before and I will say it again. What they are allowed to do is look at the evidence before them and weigh that in conjunction with the doubt that was placed on it and then make a rational decision as to whether there is enough evidence to convict someone. In this case, there was just too much doubt.BigMoose67 said:
