Court of public opinion looms large in George Zimmerman murder trial

[Jiro]

They aren't "concrete" but I wouldn't dismiss them entirely. If they didn't have some value the lawyers wouldn't put them on the stand.

nobody said they're smart. after all... the prosecutors' "star witnesses" backfired on them.

I think rather than concrete you mean forensic proof. Even with that, those bits and pieces of evidence must be from credible sources and put together in a logical way. This is where collection methods, chain of custody, forensic techniques, and expert testimony come into play.

thus.... a concrete proof.

if a security video showing a clear view of robber's face isn't a concrete proof... then I don't know what is.

 

[kokonut]

They aren't "concrete" but I wouldn't dismiss them entirely. If they didn't have some value the lawyers wouldn't put them on the stand.

I think rather than concrete you mean forensic proof. Even with that, those bits and pieces of evidence must be from credible sources and put together in a logical way. This is where collection methods, chain of custody, forensic techniques, and expert testimony come into play.

Makes obvious sense to me.

 

[Reba]

...if a security video showing a clear view of robber's face isn't a concrete proof... then I don't know what is.

You obviously haven't watched many defense attorneys in action.

 

[Steinhauer]

Don't you have to wait 2 weeks for concrete to proof?

Or is it 5 days?

 

[Jiro]

You obviously haven't watched many defense attorneys in action.

hence..... "enough evidences to prove beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[Reba]

hence..... "enough evidences to prove beyond reasonable doubt."

That's not the same as concrete evidence. You'd be surprised how much "concrete" evidence crumbles. Videos, fingerprints, and DNA aren't the slam dunk that people think they are.

People are judged guilty most of the time on circumstantial evidence with no "concrete' evidence. It's the totality of the package that convinces jurors that a defendant is guilty.

 

[VacationGuy234]

That's not the same as concrete evidence. You'd be surprised how much "concrete" evidence crumbles. Videos, fingerprints, and DNA aren't the slam dunk that people think they are.

People are judged guilty most of the time on circumstantial evidence with no "concrete' evidence. It's the totality of the package that convinces jurors that a defendant is guilty.

I agree with this. Since both sides lie and exaggerate(a component of the human condition) and it is up to the jury to decide who is at fault. In addition, while I don't agree with this system at all, I see no better way to solve lies and exaggeration issues than to use how we, "feel" about it.

Until such time that we can do away with this system, unfortunately, we are stuck with it.

 

[Reba]

...Until such time that we can do away with this system, unfortunately, we are stuck with it.

Well, doing away with this system would require doing away with a big chunk of the Constitution, so I don't think that will happen.

Imperfect as it is, I think it's the best system.

Since you don't approve of this system, what system do you prefer?

 

[VacationGuy234]

Well, doing away with this system would require doing away with a big chunk of the Constitution, so I don't think that will happen.

Imperfect as it is, I think it's the best system.

Since you don't approve of this system, what system do you prefer?

I think the concept of loser pays would be a good start. Also, an independent body to oversee what IS scientific fact instead of paid expert opinion would help. I think we can do away with the government using the media to ensure guilt as well.

EDIT: Since there is no other system, I can only try to improve the current one.

EDIT: Almost forgot: Ability for jurors to ask questions.

 

[Jiro]

That's not the same as concrete evidence. You'd be surprised how much "concrete" evidence crumbles. Videos, fingerprints, and DNA aren't the slam dunk that people think they are.

People are judged guilty most of the time on circumstantial evidence with no "concrete' evidence. It's the totality of the package that convinces jurors that a defendant is guilty.

like OJ Simpson? it wasn't the evidence that crumbled... it was the police's incompetence.

 

[Steinhauer]

Roderick Scott shot the unarmed teen in the back, from 20 feet away:

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/471264/greece-teen-was-shot-in-the-back/

 

[Reba]

I think the concept of loser pays would be a good start.

Oh, you're talking civil cases, not criminal.

Also, an independent body to oversee what IS scientific fact instead of paid expert opinion would help.

The problem is, not that scientific facts are disputed but their interpretation and relevance is. That is, both sides may agree that the fingerprints belong to Joe Blow but they can disagree on how and why they were there, and how that is relevant to the case.

I think we can do away with the government using the media to ensure guilt as well.

That's not part of the court system.

If "the government" (local, state, district, federal?) was really doing it then I would have to say they haven't been very successful at it since not everyone gets convicted.

EDIT: Since there is no other system, I can only try to improve the current one.

I think you should first get a better understanding of what's really involved in our current court system.

EDIT: Almost forgot: Ability for jurors to ask questions.

In some states (such as Michigan and Arizona) they can.

 

[Tousi]

Don't you have to wait 2 weeks for concrete to proof?

Or is it 5 days?

If you water it correctly in the days following the pouring.....

 

[Reba]

For a foundation, TCS agrees with the two weeks plus light watering so it will cure slowly, without cracking. It also gives it extra strength.

For a shed base or patio, about three-four days with light sprinkling.

For fence posts, TCS pours 30-40-lbs of Quickrete into the hole with the 4x4 post, then pours water into the hole on top of it and lets it sit for three days.

 

[VacationGuy234]

Oh, you're talking civil cases, not criminal.

I'm talking about both, why should a man who was wrongly tried and convicted pay his own legal bills? Why should he not be repaid for years taken out of his life.

Why do we need such a thing as the Project Innocence movement? Why does the government not try to find those wrongly convicted on it's own?

The problem is, not that scientific facts are disputed but their interpretation and relevance is.

That's why we have a judge to determine relevance.

That is, both sides may agree that the fingerprints belong to Joe Blow

That's the whole point, they don't agree. And, that is were the paid experts come into play.

That's not part of the court system.

You right. That's nicely handled by the police department. You know, those people who are suppose to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yet, I so seldom see that as the case.

If "the government" (local, state, district, federal?) was really doing it then I would have to say they haven't been very successful at it since not everyone gets convicted.

Oh but they have, just try being a defense attorney. There is no equality in our court system.

I think you should first get a better understanding of what's really involved in our current court system.

I trust you'll guide me on that.

 

[Reba]

I'm talking about both, why should a man who was wrongly tried and convicted pay his own legal bills? Why should he not be repaid for years taken out of his life.

You said loser pays. That would be civil court only.

As far as wrongful convictions that are overturned years later, there sometimes are reparations paid. But when it comes to criminal court convictions, really, who is responsible for a wrongful conviction? Unless witnesses lied or technicians falsified lab results or police destroyed evidence, there isn't usually someone to blame.

Why do we need such a thing as the Project Innocence movement?

Because people and technologies aren't perfect and never will be. At least this is available now.

Why does the government not try to find those wrongly convicted on it's own?

If someone has been convicted, it's not the "government's" job to try to overturn convictions.

Also, you have to be more specific than just saying "the government" this and that. There is no one monolithic agency called "the government" that does everything.

That's why we have a judge to determine relevance.

Not exactly.

That's the whole point, they don't agree. And, that is were the paid experts come into play.

The experts for both sides are paid experts.

You right. That's nicely handled by the police department. You know, those people who are suppose to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yet, I so seldom see that as the case.

You misunderstand. There is nothing in the Constitution that says people are supposed to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. The court system is only supposed to treat a defendant as though he's innocent.

The police are only required to handle the evidence according to procedure; they don't have to believe anything about anyone.

Oh but they have, just try being a defense attorney. There is no equality in our court system.

You're really confusing me. Lots of defendants are found not guilty, and defense attorneys are very often successful. You make it sound like every defendant, whether innocent or not, is found guilty.

I trust you'll guide me on that.

You need to do your own research. Seriously.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Roderick Scott: The 'Black George Zimmerman' Acquitted of Murder in 2009

I couldn't find a court transcript for that case. I want to know what the coroner said. Did Scott shoot the white teen in the back? If so, that was not a self defense.

 

[Steinhauer]

I couldn't find a court transcript for that case. I want to know what the coroner said. Did Scott shoot the white teen in the back? If so, that was not a self defense.

Unlike Zimmerman, Scott was not injured.

 

[Foxrac]

I couldn't find a court transcript for that case. I want to know what the coroner said. Did Scott shoot the white teen in the back? If so, that was not a self defense.

Well, jury disagreed with you.

 

[kokonut]

Unlike Zimmerman, Scott was not injured.

And it was never, never, never about race or profiling. Totally impossible.