|
|
Post by stapower on Jan 31, 2007 18:11:17 GMT -5
I'm sitting here watching the True Hollywood Story on E! again.
I think you are guilty Scott ... <rest deleted>
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 31, 2007 21:07:24 GMT -5
I'm sitting here watching the True Hollywood Story on E! again. I think you are guilty Scott ... <rest deleted> Go to What are the odds? and argue with those calculations. After spending over $4 million and in a trial that lasted over 5 months the prosecution could not find even one molecule of evidence that points to guilt and is incapable of innocent explanation. Given that failure his innocence is unassailable. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 8:09:52 GMT -5
'unassailable'? Clearly the jurors didn't see it that way. Couldn't we simply agree that the evidence, taken as a whole by a dispassionate finder of fact, was insufficient for a murder conviction? I could, in good conscience, agree to that. But 'unassailable'?....under our system (ideally) of justice, all that's required for a verdict of not guilty is 'reasonable doubt'--which I do think there's plenty of in the Peterson case. But I wasn't on the jury--had I been, I would NOT have wimped out like that one juror did before the verdict was rendered! He said he felt intimidated/bullied by the other jurors. They'd have had to carry me out in a body bag to have bullied me off that jury.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 12:59:26 GMT -5
'unassailable'? Clearly the jurors didn't see it that way. Couldn't we simply agree that the evidence, taken as a whole by a dispassionate finder of fact, was insufficient for a murder conviction? I could, in good conscience, agree to that. But 'unassailable'?....under our system (ideally) of justice, all that's required for a verdict of not guilty is 'reasonable doubt'--which I do think there's plenty of in the Peterson case. But I wasn't on the jury--had I been, I would NOT have wimped out like that one juror did before the verdict was rendered! He said he felt intimidated/bullied by the other jurors. They'd have had to carry me out in a body bag to have bullied me off that jury. Me too. In case you haven't noticed, I enjoy arguing and the other 11 would have been 'volunteer targets' if they didn't vote with me. However as far as the Peterson verdict goes, no, his innocence is unassailable, based on the facts:- Where exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof? When exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof? Why exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof? What exactly was the way that Laci was killed? What is the proof? According to the prosecution, Laci was in the sea for a full 111 days. According to police records Evelyn Hernandez was in the sea for no more than 84 days. Yet Evelyn's body was just bones and her fetus was totally gone. Why wasn't Laci's body in the same or worse condition? Facts don't lie. Laci was in the water for no more than 1 or 2 days. Laci Peterson's body was dumped off the Albany Bulb mere hours before it was found. Conner's body was dumped where it was found -- it was never in the sea. This is why the prosecution had their tame judge block the defense from seeing the Hernandez file - it proves Scott is innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 15:41:48 GMT -5
Judges in California are elected...including the ones on the state's supreme and appelate court. It's going to take a courageous judge to overturn Peterson's conviction. AND, they may even say the jury is entitled to draw their own conclusions based on circumstantial rather than physical evidence. The test is typically could ANY reasonable juror have found Mr. Peterson guilty having heard the same evidence. Plenty of people even in this forum seem still convinced of his guilt. It will be interesting to read the arguments upon appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 16:27:54 GMT -5
Judges in California are elected...including the ones on the state's supreme and appelate court. It's going to take a courageous judge to overturn Peterson's conviction. AND, they may even say the jury is entitled to draw their own conclusions based on circumstantial rather than physical evidence. The test is typically could ANY reasonable juror have found Mr. Peterson guilty having heard the same evidence. Plenty of people even in this forum seem still convinced of his guilt. It will be interesting to read the arguments upon appeal. If you are saying that a jury may guess; or decide based on how they feel, then the US 'Justice System' has irretrievably broken down. I still hold to the view that no conviction should be had unless the actual facts would convince any (meaning EVERY) reasonable person of the guilt of the accused, despite any assumption of his innocence. My view is that the facts should be sufficient to convince you even if the accused was your own brother. You should read the judge's instruction and try to parse them. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 22:28:32 GMT -5
It would be great if that were the case, but no, the test on appeal with respect to 'facts' is:
Would any reasonable juror/jury have been persuaded of the convicted party's guilt having been exposed to the SAME facts--if so, the fact finding body's conclusion stands on appeal with respect to what they found those facts to be and reaching a conclusion of guilt based on them. Now if the review court finds that the jury was tainted, tampered with, guilty of misconduct, or were not given facts (say the judge excluded them from evidence at trial) they needed to make a fair determination, then they might remand the case for re-trial unless they find the evidence (unlikely) was so overwhelming that even with the errors listed above, no harm was done because a reasonable juror/jury would have convicted anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 23:50:09 GMT -5
It would be great if that were the case, but no, the test on appeal with respect to 'facts' is: Would any reasonable juror/jury have been persuaded of the convicted party's guilt having been exposed to the SAME facts--if so, the fact finding body's conclusion stands on appeal with respect to what they found those facts to be and reaching a conclusion of guilt based on them. Now if the review court finds that the jury was tainted, tampered with, guilty of misconduct, or were not given facts (say the judge excluded them from evidence at trial) they needed to make a fair determination, then they might remand the case for re-trial unless they find the evidence (unlikely) was so overwhelming that even with the errors listed above, no harm was done because a reasonable juror/jury would have convicted anyway! What evidence exists that this jury was reasonable? IMO they are no better than the Dowaliby jury - and deserve the same regard that the superior court gave those individuals and their opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 13, 2007 4:22:02 GMT -5
The court of review begins with the premise/presumption that the jury was reasonable. The burden, which is substantial, to show otherwise lies with the appellant. The test for that is as I described above in my previous post. It isn't whether SOME other jury would have found differently but whether ANY other 'reasonable' jury would have concurred. The bias for 'finality' leads to one of those 1-way turnstiles Sister Prejean describes in her objection to the process leading to the DP.
|
|
