There isn't any evidence there at all. Zero.
If you think that the fact that the knife that was used to kill the father was the exact same as the one the son bought and "lost" that very same day after getting hit by the father is not evidence - then I don't know what to say.
The jury isn't tasked with proving anything. Not their job
Never said it was. #8 said he proved it. He is the one that said it and I was refuting it. He didn't prove anything. I didn't say he had to prove anything, but was refuting the fact that he said he proved it.
Why in the world would #8 have any reason to make up the knife story?
He's against the death penalty. He wanted to show he was right. He thought the son wasn't getting a fair trial so he wanted to put the balance in his favor.....
you are totally misunderstanding that the job of the jury is and how the system works
Sorry but I know exactly how the system works and in detail. The jurors cannot go and investigate the crime, bring evidence into the jury room, act as experts, etc..... All of which happened with this jury. Yes, they don't have to prove anything and the burden of proof is on the prosecution - that does not mean the jury gets to do what ever they want. That is NOT how the system works.
The likelihood of someone winning Powerball is astronomical but it still happens.
Are you saying if some other theory is possible even if it is astronomical - you should acquit since it is POSSIBLE?
I have posted law papers, rules of the court system, rules of jury conduct, etc supporting my position as well as my knowledge of the system and even how probabilities are used. You seem to think you know how it works - but I think you are getting your info from TV or the movies- which (take my word) is not the place to get it. You seem to think if it happened in the movies then it must be true (bonjour).
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share
JPLogan54
9 years ago
Are you saying if some other theory is possible even if it is astronomical - you should acquit since it is POSSIBLE?
You constantly discount the logic used by Fonda in the film and them you use the same tactics yourself to make your point. What I am saying is that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defense raises a reasonable doubt it is not proof of guilt to supposing or citing improbabilities. Stop holding the defense to as high a burden as the prosecution. The prosecution doesn't get to convict based on "could of". On the other hand the defense can acquit based on "could of" - as in there is a reason to believe that another chain of events is possible/probable, that it's possible eye witnesses were mistaken.
So for example when people start to talk about the doubt brought up by the woman needing glasses, you cannot prove the kids guilt by supposing about when and where people forget to take off their glasses. That doesn't make the case and it's exactly what you claim is weak about what Fonda does.
I have posted law papers, rules of the court system, rules of jury conduct, etc supporting my position as well as my knowledge of the system and even how probabilities are used.
You've posted law papers. I just want to clarify that statement. Papers written by who? You posted links on this board to these papers?
I am quite curious if you my be a police officer too.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
9 years ago
I am not holding the defense to a high burden as they don't have any burden to do anything. The prosecution had a solid case. Two witnesses, one of which saw the crime and the son commit the murder, the other saw the son running from the scene and he heard the son threaten the father just prior to the murder. They had a murder weapon which was the same the son just bought that same day and lost. The defendant did not have a credible alibi. The defendent had a history of knife fighting and violence.
Now that is a solid case. Now what the jury did, especially #8, was "what if" each part of evidence. They used assumption after assumption and illogical reasoning to find "fault" in the case. #8 on more than one occassion used the term - but isn't it possible. Being possible isn't the burden of proof. It is beyond a reasonble doubt. Anything could be possible that doesn't make it reasonble.
As for the papers - I have on numerous occassions posted law papers from law professors from prestigious universities. I have posted rules of the courts and rules of the jury.
I will post them again. The rules are lengthy but demonstrate how #8 violated the court rules and how Klugman was acting as an expert which he shouldn't have.
Straight from NYS courts:
Evidence
When you judge the facts you are to consider only the evidence.
The evidence in the case includes:
the testimony of the witnesses,
the exhibits that were received in evidence, [and]
[the stipulation(s) by the parties. (A stipulation is information
the parties agree to present to the jury as evidence, without calling
a witness to testify.)]
Testimony which was stricken from the record or to which an
objection was sustained must be disregarded by you.
Exhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon
your request, for your inspection and consideration.
Exhibits that were just seen during the trial, or marked for
identification but not received in evidence, are not evidence, and
are thus not available for your inspection and consideration.
But, testimony based on exhibits that were not received in
evidence may be considered by you. It is just that the exhibit itself
is not available for your inspection and consideration.
This from NYS courts explains expertise and ordinary knowledge:
JUROR EXPERTISE
In evaluating the evidence and the issues presented, you
should use your common sense, knowledge, and experience, just
as you would in making decisions in your daily life. When I speak
of “knowledge” and “experience” in this context, I mean the sort of
knowledge and experience that an average person would acquire
in life.
Some of you, however, may have something more than
ordinary knowledge or experience in a certain area. Indeed, it may
be that you have developed a special expertise in a certain area,
well beyond what an average person would have.
If you have such a special expertise, and if it relates to some
material issue in this case, it would be wrong for you to rely on that
special expertise to inject into your deliberations either a fact that
is not in evidence or inferable from the evidence, or an opinion that
could not be drawn from the evidence by a person without that
special expertise. The reason it would be wrong to do so is that
you must decide this case only on the evidence presented to you
in this courtroom.
Therefore, with respect to any material issue in this case, you
must not use any special expertise you have to insert into the
deliberations evidence that has not been presented in this
courtroom during the trial.
A couple of the papers I have posted:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2589&context=facpubs
http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/vol82no2/Vidmar.pdf
http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/vol82no2/Asimow.pdf
I do not tell what I do - due to privacy and I don't want it to be part of my debate - I'd rather have my debate judged on it own merrits. If that makes sense.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share