I don't get caught up usually in the latest Nancy Grace "pretty white woman in trouble" crap. With all the time wasted not discussing real problems in the MSM, and the blatant use of luridness for ratings, I consider the broadcasts to be sensationalist porn of sorts.
However with the 24/7 CA saga, it was hard to miss. I did catch the closing arguments and was intrigued with the chart presented by one of the defense attorneys that explained their reasoning concerning being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Frankly, when the verdict came in not guilty, I thought back to the chart, and listening to both sides of the argument came to the initial conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
After some thought I went back to the chart because of some lingering doubt. Here is the chart concerning the reasoning by the defense on what it takes to be found guilty. I also understand from the talking heads that it is used in many criminal trials, Law school 101 they called it:
"[IMG]http://i1101.photobucket.com/...[/IMG]"
The defense did a great job of bamboozlement here in this chart, one that I fell for initially also. In this chart the defense just co-opted the statement "strong belief of guilt" as meaning "not guilty".
as opposed to" innocent" like I said before.... Good point and your suggested editing of my piece to where we are now is cool..
except, "strong belief of guilt means not guilty"..I'm not buying it...
Since when can't one have a strong belief of guilt as well as beyond a reasonable doubt? Can't I say "strongly believe guilty, including beyond a reasonable doubt". Can't I feel strongly that there is guilt, including beyond a reasonable doubt? Can't I strongly believe guilt way beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course I can.
The use of this chart places an undue burden on the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is used to convict people everyday in this country, and every time "beyond a reasonable doubt". Being circumstantial does not disqualify as evidence. And taking away "I strongly believe" denies the jurist the most common method of reasoning when dealing with circumstantial evidence. This hit home even more when i saw the interview of jurist # 3 on CNN. She said the case was decided because of the circumstantial evidence. Sounds to me like the defense did a great job of framing the reasoning behind what is acceptable in dealing with circumstantial evidence, and "since I wasn't there to actually witness what happened, I guess 'strongly believing' is not good enough". Amazing...
Secondly the chart implies some false thought process that one needs to go through to get to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", 13 of which denote innocence, 1 of which is guilty, most of which were to further confuse and bury the sleight of hand concerning the use of "strong belief", which let's face it, when a parent fails to report a missing child for a month and the child turns up dead, what would any reasonable person believe? And that is "not guilty"?
Please...
The prosecution should have objected to this chart. In fact, I'm convinced it is a big part why she is out today...