× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



See <<>>

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:48 PM
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Subject: 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...

<<>> Whew...:=(  Just goes to show...



>>> 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.

<<>> I, too, was working my butt off at the time.



>>> 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.

<<>> I agree, but the jurists evidently fell into the same trap.  Perhaps it
was too much responsibility, to decide the case for the whole nation, for
non-professional jurists to attempt...?  Perhaps they goofed...?



>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>

<<>> Would have been the common sense approach, to me, too...;=)



>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.

<<>> I'm agreeing with you...!  I question that the decision was THAT
unanimous, THAT quick...  That's all...



>>> 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?

<<>> Seems too much like a crap-shoot, to me.  And I believe what I've read
about how the population on death-row is statistically skewed.



>>> 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.

<<>> Yeah, very scary...  I read in college of an experiment where they
videotaped some kind of stressful situation, and eyewitness testimony was
pretty much proven to NOT ALWAYS be as reliable as you would think.  Not
that I'm saying it's NEVER any good, but not like you'd think.  Recent
Dateline shows (and I'm sure many others) have provent the point again, when
people on death-row are proven innocent, and sometimes the actual killer is
found.



>"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...

<<>> Shucks...  There are other threads, ya know...:=)  (Actually, I have a
little clean-up job to do myself.  Shucks, again...;=)


Doug

<<>> jt



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.