Juror No. 6 Will Talk for $50K - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

lutzTD · #16 07-08-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Emotion and the law don't work together; do they?

she was rewarded by covering it all up for so long, they assuredly do not in this case

they are also working on a new law, "Cayle's Law" that will prosecute with a big penalty for covering up a missing child for an extended time.

MS Fowler · #17 07-08-2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Emotion and the law don't work together; do they?

Again we AGREE!! ( I think).
I believe it comes down to the prosecution failing to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
For a long time Prosecutors have leaked their side of the case to local media to get it firmly in the minds of potential jurors. Its different when the Defendant actually gets to rebut some of the accusations.
She seems like a thoroughly messed up person from a completely dysfunctional family, but guilt was not proved, in the minds of the jurors.

Guilt was obviously proved in the minds of the media talking heads who cannot believe that she was declared "not guilty"

And remember that----no jury declares a person "innocent"; just "not GUILTY" .

lutzTD · #18 07-08-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Again we AGREE!! ( I think).
I believe it comes down to the prosecution failing to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
For a long time Prosecutors have leaked their side of the case to local media to get it firmly in the minds of potential jurors. Its different when the Defendant actually gets to rebut some of the accusations.
She seems like a thoroughly messed up person from a completely dysfunctional family, but guilt was not proved, in the minds of the jurors.

Guilt was obviously proved in the minds of the media talking heads who cannot believe that she was declared "not guilty"

And remember that----no jury declares a person "innocent"; just "not GUILTY" .

I watched a lot of the testimony and do not base my opinion on some idiot newscasters skew toward sensationalism. I did not say I dont agree in the end that she was found not guilty, I said she is giulty in my opinion and I hope it turns out the same for her as OJ

davidmash · #19 07-08-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

^^^

Jury made the right decision. Unless there's virtually airtight evidence, you can't send someone up for life or to the electric chair. The prosecution's case had a lot of holes in it.

Better a guilty person get off free than have something like the Todd Willingham case happen again. Guy wasn't a nice guy, but he was executed in Texas on testimony that was later proven to be incompetent.

But that is TX. Everyone knows TX is 'different'. Just look at the issues surrounding the guy TX executed last night.

davidmash · #20 07-08-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

I heard tonight they are already lining upfor the civil suits. the county wants its investigation money back as well as several private groups who were involved. Along with that and the cost to defend shes going to need a book to even be solvent. not to mention that she acused her parents of all kinds of dispicable things. She used to live with her parents, now even that will not be available. I hope to see her suffer the same fate as OJ, she will be a peria and eventually will try to do something illegal figuring the lawyers will get her out again. it will be interesting to see what happens to her if she ends up in a federal prison, which Im guessing is only a few years away

this case renews my disgust in trial lawyers. you can bet she told all the disgusting details to her team and they are still celebrating the fact that they helped her get away with it.

Odds are she did not tell her lawyers any thing they did not want to hear. A defense attorneys job is to represent you to the best of their ability. Had they not done so they open them selves up for a law suit and possible disbarment. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a difficult task to accomplish and it is done so for a reason.

Dee8go · #21 07-08-2011, 11:09 AM

I guess another potential question for lawyers to ask potential jurors, "Do you have a literary agent?"

spdrun · #22 07-08-2011, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

But that is TX. Everyone knows TX is 'different'. Just look at the issues surrounding the guy TX executed last night.

Florida isn't much better. (I might support the death penalty in a perfect world, but not in reality because it's damned hard to un-kill someone who've you just killed after new evidence comes out. Plus the participation of doctors in lethal injection is abhorrent and disgusting -- please at least use a method that only requires the use of hired killers, not medical professionals who took an oath to save life.)

MTI · #23 07-08-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

I guess another potential question for lawyers to ask potential jurors, "Do you have a literary agent?"

It exists for attorneys, but not for jurors. Following the Patty Hearst trial, a new rule for attorneys was put in place, making it a conflict of interest for an attorney to have any financial interest, such as a book contract, publishing rights, etc., during the course of representing a client.

lutzTD · #24 07-08-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Odds are she did not tell her lawyers any thing they did not want to hear. A defense attorneys job is to represent you to the best of their ability. Had they not done so they open them selves up for a law suit and possible disbarment. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a difficult task to accomplish and it is done so for a reason.

she doesnt seem smart enough to have fooled guys whose occupation demands them to learn how to tell if they are being deceived. a lawyer who says he doesnt know the truth about his client after the time they spend together is either lying to us or to himself. the police knew she was lying and caught her at it many times during the investigation. it takes a lot of intelligence to remember the lies, a lot less to remember the truth.

spdrun · #25 07-08-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

she doesnt seem smart enough to have fooled guys whose occupation demands them to learn how to tell if they are being deceived. a lawyer who says he doesnt know the truth about his client after the time they spend together is either lying to us or to himself. the police knew she was lying and caught her at it many times during the investigation. it takes a lot of intelligence to remember the lies, a lot less to remember the truth.

Unless she did something and then didn't WANT to believe what she did or what happened. How could someone kill their kid and not have any sort of remorse or compunction? Perhaps I haven't been around enough psychopaths to find out.

lutzTD · #26 07-08-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Unless she did something and then didn't WANT to believe what she did or what happened. How could someone kill their kid and not have any sort of remorse or compunction? Perhaps I haven't been around enough psychopaths to find out.

the cops caught her lying pretty fast. I guess that proves they are much smarter than lawyers

spdrun · #27 07-08-2011, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

the cops caught her lying pretty fast. I guess that proves they are much smarter than lawyers

Both are plenty smart. There's a huge difference between "caught in a lie" and "proven to be a murderess without a reasonable doubt." Problem is that if you send her to the chair based on scant evidence, it could happen to someone else less deserving in the future.

Jorn · #28 07-08-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

the cops caught her lying pretty fast. I guess that proves they are much smarter than lawyers

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

she doesnt seem smart enough to have fooled guys whose occupation demands them to learn how to tell if they are being deceived. a lawyer who says he doesnt know the truth about his client after the time they spend together is either lying to us or to himself. the police knew she was lying and caught her at it many times during the investigation. it takes a lot of intelligence to remember the lies, a lot less to remember the truth.

If she did it or not I don't know; like all of us but the girl. But what I know is that people in situations like this tell little lies so they don't implement them self and to please the interrogator. Those little lies become bigger lies overtime when they are spoken on by authorities. Lets not forget this is a young women.

You can't sent someone to death because they lied to the police. The prosecutor couldn't make the case, end of story. The system worked.

MTI · #29 07-08-2011, 04:24 PM

Defense attorneys, depending on their practice, may not necessarily ask a client if they are guilty or innocent, since that knowledge isn't germane to defending the client against charges by the state. It's actually a risky part of the practice, since a lawyer has an ethical duty not to knowingly allow a client or witness to perpetrate a fraud on the court by commiting perjury.

davidmash · #30 07-08-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

she doesnt seem smart enough to have fooled guys whose occupation demands them to learn how to tell if they are being deceived. a lawyer who says he doesnt know the truth about his client after the time they spend together is either lying to us or to himself. the police knew she was lying and caught her at it many times during the investigation. it takes a lot of intelligence to remember the lies, a lot less to remember the truth.

It is one thing to 'know' something because you have put some pieces together and your supposition makes sense. For something to be known in a court of law you either need to have proof or you need an admission. Lawyers tend not to ask questions that they do not want to know the answer to. It is there job to defend their client to the best of their ability. They did just that.

When a lawyer says he does not know the truth he is being technically correct more than likely. He knows it in his heart but if there was no admission or proof then he does not "know" it.