Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

JT,

>>> Because I believe that the quality of the team of defense lawyers
>essential bought an innocent verdict.

Has anybody checked to see if any of the jurors went out and bought a new car
right after the trial?  <g>

>>> I wasn't trying to equate speed of verdict to mean a poor quality verdict.

I mincontrued your intent in the last message.  Sorry.

>>> And granted, the prosectution case was less than stellar.  But DNA
>evidence is DNA evidence.

OTOH, I've heard the better criminals are starting to collect DNA samples from
*other* people, and intentionally contaminate a crime scene.  Makes for a pretty
wicked way to frame somebody...

>>> But, do you know what?  I can't say, for a fact, that I studied all the
>evidence presented in the case.  In fact, I can state that I didn't.

Me either.  I had better things to do than watch courtroom theatrics.

>>> There is no mathematical possibility that they discussed much of the
>evidence presented, in four hours.

But must you dicuss each piece of evidence if everyone agrees the case is not
"beyond a perponderance of doubt" or whatever the qualification is?  I mostly
tried to distance myself from the OJ trial soap opera, but it seemed to me at
the time that most people's opinions were formed prior to the trial and they
weren't going to let any facts sway them one way or the other.

>IMHO, the jury goofed, *not so much
>because of the verdict*, but because *they obviously never discussed any of
>the mountains of evidence in their deliberations*.

Yeah, they should have played cards or something for a few days first... <g>

>their position...  Well...  If you were a jurist in that situation, where
>you really DID have doubts about OJ's innocence, you're facing a decision:
>innocent, or hung jury.  Not good choices.

But if you really DID have doubts, than in a criminal murder trial, you MUST
acquit him.  You haven't risen above the standard necessary in a first-degree
murder case.   Civil cases are another matter.

>>> In my view, it is certainly possible to find reasonable doubt in all
>almost any murder cases,

It's a wonder we convict any of them, huh?

>>> Just as I've seen eyewitness testimony, that convicted a man, and later
>DNA evidenced proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyewitness
>testimony was confused.

It is pretty scary how contradictory multiple eyewitness testimonies of the same
event can be.  Makes you really wonder sometimes when there is a lone witness
and not much collaborating evidence.

>"It's a court of law, not a court of justice" is about as succinct as
>I can summarize it.
>
>>> Have never heard it said any better...

That was my main point of jumping into the thread.  I've got to go back to work
now...

Doug