Hernandez Questioned in Homicide?!?!? WTF

Share this page

Dwight Schrute said:
I'm following you.

And in that case you are correct.

But I'm alluding to a case where the prosecution has their guy. They know it. The judge and jury know it. But the guy does a good enough job of not leaving enough evidence behind and gets off because of the burden of proof deal.

That's where the system stings.

Casey Anthony is a good example I'd guess.
Click to expand...

If there's not enough evidence, how can anyone "know it?" That is a logical error right there.
 
I don't think anyone is saying convicting innocent people is ok. I just don't think it's as simple as saying letting 100 criminals get away instead of convicting 1 innocent person is necessarily going to work out just fine..
 
Jaric said:
I do and I don't. I'm a very empathetic person. However, if I have to make a decision of that magnitude, I will do everything I can to distance myself emotionally from it because it can and will effect your judgement.

I'm not accusing you of that for the record. I get where you're coming from. I don't know how you explain to the mother of a murdered child to look at the big picture. I don't think you really can or even should.
Click to expand...


:toast:
 
Michigan Dave said:
If there's not enough evidence, how can anyone "know it?" That is a logical error right there.
Click to expand...

You've got a beautiful baby girl.

If your wife went nuts and went the same exact route as Casey with the same exact trail and evidence left in her wake and the same outcome how would you feel WRT logic?
 
tehrick67 said:
I don't think anyone is saying convicting innocent people is ok. I just don't think it's as simple as saying letting 100 criminals get away instead of convicting 1 innocent person is necessarily going to work out just fine..
Click to expand...

Well, of course it's not going to work out fine. It was a metaphorical statement. The point I was trying to make is that with all of its flaws, just usually works. It doesn't work in the event a guilty man is found not guilty and an innocent man is found guilty. I would rather see the flaws of the system weight in favor of assuring that an innocent man not be found guilty.

You know, the scales of justice and all...
 
tommysgirl said:
OJ? Does anyone really think he was innocent?
Click to expand...

That was a null verdict. And the defense presented enough evidence to find reasonable doubt, along with a lead detective who was racist, which was the defense's first problem.
 
10,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED EACH YEAR, STUDY ESTIMATES

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, a new study suggests.

The results are based on a survey of 188 judges, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs and police

chiefs in Ohio and 41 state attorneys general.

The study also found that the most important factor leading to wrongful conviction is eyewitness

misidentification.

(I found and used an OSU study on purpose :wave: MD!)
 
anderson said:
10,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED EACH YEAR, STUDY ESTIMATES

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, a new study suggests.

The results are based on a survey of 188 judges, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs and police

chiefs in Ohio and 41 state attorneys general.

The study also found that the most important factor leading to wrongful conviction is eyewitness

misidentification.

(I found and used an OSU study on purpose :wave: MD!)
Click to expand...

They're cheaters.
 
PatsFanLisa said:
That was a null verdict. And the defense presented enough evidence to find reasonable doubt, along with a lead detective who was racist, which was the defense's first problem.
Click to expand...
I understand the complete cluster that case became, it just popped into my head because MD asked how anyone can know it. I think the only 12 people who didn't know it sat on that jury.
 
In 1984, two North Carolina girls, age 4 and 6, were molested. They told police their abuser was Sylvester Smith, who was dating the mother of one of the girls, and he went to prison for the crime.

Twenty years later, the victims recanted, saying their grandmother told them to blame Smith, and his conviction was overturned.

But the person they say who really molested them -- their cousin, who was nine at the time -- could not be prosecuted because he was under age at the time of the alleged crime. He is, however, serving a life sentence for another crime he committed in the meantime: murder.
Click to expand...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-2000-false-convictions-in-past-23-years?lite
 
tommysgirl said:
I understand the complete cluster that case became, it just popped into my head because MD asked how anyone can know it. I think the only 12 people who didn't know it sat on that jury.
Click to expand...

That entire trial was on Court TV. I watched it every single day. While logically it appeared that he was guilty, I could sit there and explain away half of the evidence that the prosecution team put forward.

Logically, he was guilty.
Based on the evidence presented and the arguments in opposition, there was reasonable doubt.

You can't convict someone on logic.
 
tommysgirl said:
I understand the complete cluster that case became, it just popped into my head because MD asked how anyone can know it. I think the only 12 people who didn't know it sat on that jury.
Click to expand...

I think you could put 12 new people on that jury and present the case identically and still find him not guilty. Those two detectives jacked that case up. It had to have practically killed Marcia Clark and Chris Darden to try and deal with the blunders.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
PatsFanLisa said:
That entire trial was on Court TV. I watched it every single day. While logically it appeared that he was guilty, I could sit there and explain away half of the evidence that the prosecution team put forward.

Logically, he was guilty.
Based on the evidence presented and the arguments in opposition, there was reasonable doubt.

You can't convict someone on logic.
Click to expand...

Pyxis said:
I think you could put 12 new people on that jury and present the case identically and still find him not guilty. Those two detectives jacked that case up. It had to have practically killed Marcia Clark and Chris Darden to try and deal with the blunders.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...

I watched it all too, I was mesmerized and cried like her family when the verdict came in.

I suppose that's where my problem lies...I don't know that I would be capable of seperating logic from reasonable doubt?
 
tommysgirl said:
I watched it all too, I was mesmerized and cried like her family when the verdict came in.

I suppose that's where my problem lies...I don't know that I would be capable of seperating logic from reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

That's the thing about law. It isn't emotion. It's cold and hard. Your feelings cannot enter the frame. It's like a recipe. If the recipe calls for 2 cups of flour, that's what you add. Now, if you add only one will it work? Is the cake made to specifications? No. So when you present that "cake" everyone being served can say "this isn't cake." They aren't saying that to be mean. It just isn't cake.

I'm sure jurors who had to acquit Casey Anthony were ripped up letting her go. Had they gone for a lesser charge she'd probably be in jail. The prosecution didn't have enough flour to make her cake.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Pyxis said:
That's the thing about law. It isn't emotion. It's cold and hard. Your feelings cannot enter the frame. It's like a recipe. If the recipe calls for 2 cups of flour, that's what you add. Now, if you add only one will it work? Is the cake made to specifications? No. So when you present that "cake" everyone being served can say "this isn't cake." They aren't saying that to be mean. It just isn't cake.

I'm sure jurors who had to acquit Casey Anthony were ripped up letting her go. Had they gone for a lesser charge she'd probably be in jail. The prosecution didn't have enough flour to make her cake.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...

I've sat on a jury, emotion has everything to do with it. i was shocked at some of the things I heard, that had nothing to do with the evidence..
 
Pyxis said:
That's the thing about law. It isn't emotion. It's cold and hard. Your feelings cannot enter the frame. It's like a recipe. If the recipe calls for 2 cups of flour, that's what you add. Now, if you add only one will it work? Is the cake made to specifications? No. So when you present that "cake" everyone being served can say "this isn't cake." They aren't saying that to be mean. It just isn't cake.

I'm sure jurors who had to acquit Casey Anthony were ripped up letting her go. Had they gone for a lesser charge she'd probably be in jail. The prosecution didn't have enough flour to make her cake.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...
Oh, I totally understand the process. I am just saying I'm not sure I'd be capable of seperating emotion

I've been called to jury duty once and was released because I knew the victim. I never want to do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top