en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2632584 Comments by Newsance http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170900468 Sadly, this isn't limited to liberals...there are plenty of such posts from conservatives. When you belief in some ideology overcomes logic and reason, we all lose.We want the culprit to be punished and when we think the culprit isn't punished, we have to blame the Idiot of choice - the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge or the jury. Then it becomes - the Medical Examiner judged it a homicide. He didn't test for drowning for some reason. So then, how does he prove it was at the hands of another when it is equally true the forensics support another conclusion that he could have ruled out? As for the OJ case, I am amazed at the arguments that still persist that aren't evidence or can't be supported by testimony or direct science. The worst one is the Marcia Clark "mountain of evidence" claim! What is your mountain of evidence. At pre-trial hearing you allege a particular knife was used and made a big deal out of it. (Was that the package that the special master held awaiting someone to call for it?) You fail to find a knife, you fail to show even a kind of knife was used (single edge, double edge) you have no evidence to refute real DNA and blood science and analysis! You put a person on the stand who perjures himself - the same guy that claims he saw blood when others didn't! The defense didn't put the glove on Simpson, Mr. Darden did. So, please where is the mountain of evidence? Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:10:02 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170900468 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170826065 There is no hard and fast rule. It is nebulous and can't be defined in a rule. When the jury is given instructions on this, it is often something like "if you believe a, b and c are all true, you must convict. If any one of these is believe to be unproved or not proved to a reasonable doubt, you must acquit! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:37:28 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170826065 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170816199 Now the judge is an idiot! Can someone actually think here, use facts or evidence to support their theories? How was the judge an "idiot?" Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:16:53 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170816199 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170815162 You certainly are a real deep thinker Donald! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:14:44 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170815162 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170785620 I didn't mention the glove at all. Mr. Darden was the one who took up that task! If you care to tell me how what I placed before you was countered by the prosecution, I'd be happy to address it. It didn't mean an automatic get out of jail free card. You use Ms. Clark's argument about a mountain of evidence. What mountain are you talking about? PD did things against their own rules! Why do they do that in a high profile case...mere Mistake. There was a rush to judgment and the prosecution got caught with their legal pants down. Had they charged him later after they had the evidence, the outcome may have been different. As it was the prosecution did not provide a mountain of controvertible evidence, but I am willing to listen to your use of testimony and evidence in the trial if you wish! If I cherry picked, please tell me how? Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:57:27 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170785620 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170768803 Law class in high school! Good for Canada! Parole for murderers is a bad idea. Eliminating the death penalty is also a bad idea! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:08:23 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170768803 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170767948 Where did I say you can't have an opinion? You jumped to a conclusion not supported by the evidence. I support the death penalty and if you google, you will find that I am quite conservative. That means that I support the Constitution and the protections it affords all of us. Far too often the State abuses its power to get a conviction. Convicting someone under the Constitution requires the prosecutor to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone is charged with capital murder, does it follow that they are guilty of that crime? I asked you to think about how you may feel were you or a family member charged with a capital crime? Would you want a jury to use a high standard of proof to determine the guilt? Follow the law? Or say: He or she is probably guilty and by snetencing them to death I may prevent a homicide as a standard? Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:06:00 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170767948 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170764015 correct! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:54:06 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170764015 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170763042 The ME's conclusion was not supported by the evidence as the jury saw it. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another. His conclusion was supported by his theory of what happened but the tape was not found on the mouth and could have had another purpose. Motive is not an element of any homicide crime...it is investigatory in nature and may be used to support a version of events by either side. The killing of another human being with malice a forethought is a general common law definition - motive isn't there as an element. It also doesn't enter into any of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter rubrics and of course not in accidental death. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:50:44 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170763042 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170760738 Then please define reasonable doubt for us. It is quite nebulous and difficult to define in any case! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:43:24 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170760738 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170760262 That's your answer when I point out you were wrong on the evidence at trail and you were wrong on the law? Are closing arguments on either side proof! The defense doesn't have to object to the prosecutor's closing arguments, he gets his chance to do the same. In either case, are either of the arguments proof? If there is a disagreement as to the application of the facts, does that constitute a lie on either lawyer's part? And if so, does that mean the prosecution always tells the truth and the defense always lies? Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:42:03 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170760262 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170758423 You are correct and I believe that to be possible in all states.It is very difficult, but there is case law that supports it in the US and UK law. In this case however, the ME didn't test for drowning and it could have been done even after the initial autopsy. The prosecutor didn't order and could have. Perhaps he was not willing to take the risk that results would not support his theory of how Cayle died or perhaps the ME didn't save bone samples for further testing? As it is in all criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.... It is a high level of proof but can be reached even in circumstantial cases without a body. 1st year law students are taught to never conclude that you know what a jury will do. This is important for attorneys on both sides to heed so during trial you dot every i and cross every t you think supports your case. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:36:23 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170758423 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170752989 Since I have served on two criminal cases as a juror, once as the foreman, and found the defendant guilty both times, I think your inane comment is without merit! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:19:35 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170752989 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170752451 Sorry to have to tell you this, but prosecutor's closing is merely argument and not proof. The evidence was that the tape wasn't found on the mouth and nose so the ME theorized how that MAY have happened. You are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:17:53 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170752451 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170751686 I see you deal with facts well! Actually, I point out the problems with the OJ case since others made the comparison! It is also apparent that anyone who disagrees with you muct be an idiot, demostrating your own lack of maturity and ability to discuss or argue. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:15:34 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170751686 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170748866 So what is your explanation for the blood evidence discrepancies? PUt on your thinking cap please! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:06:29 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170748866 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170748580 1. Blood sample of system was taken from the evidence room to the crimes scene (Vanatter testified and their was vido of it being brought to the scene by a criminalist. 2. Nurse that took the sample testified as to the amount taken 3. sample contained far less blood that nurse said 4. Days after the crime scene is released, DA and PD go back and find more blood - blood that had two things suspect - a) Higher concentration of molecular DNA that samples taken the morning after the crime when UV, pollution and heat would degrade it so it would have lower molecular DNA b) a higher than expected amount of preservative 5. A perjurious detective who found the blood evidence and had access to the sample Now I ask you the question - what does that mean? Remember the Head ME? (he testified because the ME who did the autopsy had destroyed much of the evidence he collected and was a poor witness so the prosecution had the head guy on the stand who had merely reviewed the findings) After testifying as to what kind of knife etc, on cross he admitted that it was also possible that 1, 2 or 3 people could have killed the victims. A single edge knife, double edge knife, multiple knives could have been used! The FBI "expert" was later let go and criminals freed because he wasn't qualified and did shoddy work in hundreds of cases where he testified! Since I deal with facts and you are merely content to resort to tinfoil hat nonsense. I happened to be free to watch the entire trial and didn't listen or watch any news about it, nor did I read about the trial or form an opinion until the jury was charged. There is so much more that was wrong with the prosecution's case. I think OJ likely did it. The problem is that due to the notoriety, the DA charged early before he had a case put together. Simpson's attorneys took advantage of that and didn't waive the right to a speedy trial . That made the PD and DA try to throw together a case hastily resulting in gross errors of judgment. From PD standpoint, I think the planting of evidence came because they thought they needed to salt the evidence because they were afraid OJ would get off. In doing so, they made it impossible to convict. Jurors take their job seriously, I have been a juror twice and convicted both times. One was a tough call since we had to discuss it for days to reach our verdict! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:05:22 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170748580 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170740600 I am certain you have never served on a jury. I wonder how anyone can justify calling a jury who was in the courtroom, listened to the testimony, the arguments, the evidence and applied the law, idiots or wrong? Oh! They didn't have the daily benefit of the talking heads or what some journalist thought was important. Had you the limitations they had you would likely come to the same conclusion! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:38:57 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170740600 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170739271 That may be a deal breaker for Murder 1 for you. On the other hand, an ME who can't or hasn't determined the cause of death has to justify it being a homicide. It seems to me that is a difficult thing to do beyond a reasonable doubt - just how do you scientifically prove that someone killed another when you don't know the cause! One can theorize a justification but when another theory is equally or even possible, then the claim of homicide is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what jurors have since claimed. They wanted to find some way to convict but couldn't...the prosecution failed in their case! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:34:04 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170739271 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170737376 Actually - you are wrong. The medical examiner testified but was also countered by other testimony. The ruling of a medical examiner is not fact, but opinion. He had a theory about the duct tape but it certainly wasn't found around the mouth and nose. For your information, it is the jury who determines what the facts are as a matter of law. I doubt if you have ever served on a jury. The fact that you believe the theory of the ME doesn't mean they are idiots. The ME could have tested for drowning but didn't! There are two sides to every case. Homicide wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution! But then, I'm an idiot and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot! Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:27:29 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170737376