In the Steven Avery case (please don't discuss here) thread, I pointed out that although big evidence and DNA usually play a roll in either solving a case or winning a conviction, it's often a small detail in the evidence that has an impact on how the jury interprets the evidence.
So for example in the Steven Avery case it is often mentioned that he dialed *67 in order to hide his phone number and this convinced people that he was deceptively meeting the victim.
I'm interested in discussing other cases where some small oversight, or some detail or mistake the criminal made wound up being the pivot point for the entire case.
Here are two links that discuss just that.
http://ift.tt/1ZbU6gg
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5ch
I'll share one here. Justin Barber shot his wife while walking on the beach. Then he turned the gun on himself and shot himself in his arms. Then he jumped in his car drove racing on the road trying to find help. He claimed they had both been attacked by a mugger on the beach and they were both shot. (He was shot several times)
But the jury convicted him because he said that he tried to drag her up the beach to the boardwalk. He said that he had grabbed her by her pants waistband. And the defining detail that made it "beyond a reasonable doubt" was that here was no blood on her waistband, when there should have been if he was bleeding down his arms having been shot.
The guy really thought he was going to get away with it. He figured he'd established enough "reasonable doubt" to make it "at least a hung jury."
It's funny to me when I watch these criminals because they seem to confuse "Reasonable Doubt" with "any possible doubt." I see a real misunderstanding of this term when people discuss trial verdicts.
Reasonable doubt doesn't mean "give me a reason to doubt this." It doesn't mean "if you don't eliminate any other possibility I have to acquit."
It seems to me that most juries are looking to understand how a crime happened. If the prosecutor can explain how a crime happened and show Motive, Means and Opportunity the jury is able to convict. However now we have to decide if there is no reasonable doubt. And in many cases it's the tiny overlooked detail by the perpetrator that seals the conviction.
The link to the Barbar case is below and I've just found this blog "You suck at Murder" LOL
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5ck
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5cm
So for example in the Steven Avery case it is often mentioned that he dialed *67 in order to hide his phone number and this convinced people that he was deceptively meeting the victim.
I'm interested in discussing other cases where some small oversight, or some detail or mistake the criminal made wound up being the pivot point for the entire case.
Here are two links that discuss just that.
http://ift.tt/1ZbU6gg
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5ch
I'll share one here. Justin Barber shot his wife while walking on the beach. Then he turned the gun on himself and shot himself in his arms. Then he jumped in his car drove racing on the road trying to find help. He claimed they had both been attacked by a mugger on the beach and they were both shot. (He was shot several times)
But the jury convicted him because he said that he tried to drag her up the beach to the boardwalk. He said that he had grabbed her by her pants waistband. And the defining detail that made it "beyond a reasonable doubt" was that here was no blood on her waistband, when there should have been if he was bleeding down his arms having been shot.
The guy really thought he was going to get away with it. He figured he'd established enough "reasonable doubt" to make it "at least a hung jury."
It's funny to me when I watch these criminals because they seem to confuse "Reasonable Doubt" with "any possible doubt." I see a real misunderstanding of this term when people discuss trial verdicts.
Reasonable doubt doesn't mean "give me a reason to doubt this." It doesn't mean "if you don't eliminate any other possibility I have to acquit."
It seems to me that most juries are looking to understand how a crime happened. If the prosecutor can explain how a crime happened and show Motive, Means and Opportunity the jury is able to convict. However now we have to decide if there is no reasonable doubt. And in many cases it's the tiny overlooked detail by the perpetrator that seals the conviction.
The link to the Barbar case is below and I've just found this blog "You suck at Murder" LOL
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5ck
http://ift.tt/1ZbU5cm
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MVBW5Y
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire