quote:
after 30+ hours of content, even more hours reading about the case, including reading some of the case file, I am confident I know the state's evidence and case pretty well.

"Well your honor, we weren't listening the WHOLE time, but we are pretty sure we know the deal."

Judges love hearing that before a verdict is handed down.

quote:
But regardless, your point is hollow; juries wrongfully convict innocent people all the time. Their decisions are irrelevant to the TRUTH.

When their decision doesn't seem to support the TRUTH, are we unable to question it?

The truth?? So beyond whether there was sufficient evidence, you actually believe Adnan did not kill Hae?

As for truth, what about all of the people who did the things they are charged with, but are found not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Is that the TRUTH, or do we only think in terms of truth when it fits our perspective?

Most people that are exonerated are not done so in a spotlight where societal pressure can lead to undue bias on the decision makers.

It's why jurors are sequestered or ordered to read nothing about the case while they are serving. They are to decide strictly on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

If any of the judges have heard of Serial or read anything about it, they should be excluded from hearing the case going forward.

That is what irks me about this whole phenomenon. The pressure on the judges deciding the case going forward will be IMMENSE, as so many have already made up their minds based on incomplete information, and will never be convinced otherwise.

The backlash for any judge or juror that would ultimately decide the case against the belief of those Podcasters would be immense, and the threat of that may very well color the final outcome.

That is the most dangerous idea of all imo.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35308 posts

Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:02 am to Tiger Voodoo

quote:
The truth?? So beyond whether there was sufficient evidence, you actually believe Adnan did not kill Hae?

I don't know if he did it, but I would say it's more likely he didn't do it.

Regardless, what you, I, or anybody--including a jury--thinks is irrelevant to the objective TRUTH. In other words, the jury's decision itself has no relevancy on his true guilt or innocence.

quote:
As for truth, what about all of the people who did the things they are charged with, but are found not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Is that the TRUTH, or do we only think in terms of truth when it fits our perspective?

What about them? I would prefer the system to be perfect, but given that perfection is currently impossible, I think it's a bigger travesty when the innocent are convicted than when the guilty are acquitted. But again, in general I prefer the decisions to parallel the truth.

quote:
Most people that are exonerated are not done so in a spotlight where societal pressure can lead to undue bias on the decision makers.

What's your point? I prefer accountability, and the spotlight ensures more accountability.

quote:
They are to decide strictly on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Well some evidence that was admissable should have not been admissable (hence poor counsel).

I support the fact that there are procedures in place to determine the admissability of evidence.

Regardless, the facts and the truth are not bound to the ruled if admissability. So if I find out that the detectives have ignored and misrepresented evidence (including ignoring the confession from the actual murderer) on NUMEROUS occasions that have sent innocent people to jail, then while it may not be admissable, that information is relevant to case, as it calls into question the competency of the investigators.