View Single Post
Old 6th January 2016, 09:52 AM   #163
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
How do you separate them? If you acknowledge that you believe the prosecution's theory of the crime is wrong and that the police engaged in a set up, what faith can you place in any evidence their tainted investigation yielded?
The same way you disregard a vindictive ex girl friend who lied on the stand to get her ex in trouble. I'm not sure why you don't understand how simple this is. Lots of presented evidence is completely bogus.

It's the jury's job to evaluate the reliability of the evidence presented.

Here's an example

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/22/....resentencing/


The chick gets a second trial because:

Quote:

Wright's appellate attorney, Brian Wice, argued that her original team ignored crucial witnesses who would have supported Wright's claim of abuse at the hands of her husband. A psychiatrist who treated Wright after the stabbing, an expert on Battered Woman Syndrome, and a former girlfriend of the victim who had pressed assault charges against him were all known and available to the defense but inexplicably never testified, Wice argued in his appeal.

So she gets a whole new trial and guess what? She gets convicted as guilty again. The jury said the ex girlfriend's testimony was unreliable and it didn't matter in their decision.

What mattered was the compelling evidence and some small details. One being that she stabbed him 200 times and "took a break in the middle of it" when her son woke up, put him back to bed and got another knife from the kitchen and resumed stabbing.

You seem to think, drama is a replacement for evidence. That's the demeanor I saw with his defense attorneys as well. Like I said, when you watch the documentary you can see all these "dramatic moments" where it is clear that the attorney think he's dropped a BOMBSHELL in the court room.

It reeks of dramatics and diversion.

The evidence is that her body was found on his property, her car was found on his property, he personally stated he was the last one to see her alive and he called her twice hiding the number and once without, trying to establish an alibi.

The rest of the drama is important for other reasons. I'm not saying it doesn't matter that the cops planted evidence. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with whether or not he is guilty of the crime.

It's weird to me how many people watch the documentary while checking common sense at the door and just "go along" with the film makers version of events.

No wonder Casey Anthony walked away with nothing. Either you believe that the woman just happened to be murdered by someone else and the cops said "Yeah! Let's burn the corpse and make our job harder and leave minimal DNA to evaluate!" or they cops murdered an innocent person instead of just murdering him, orrrr he did it.

Now let me think for second.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:09 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top