Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JayKay" data-source="post: 327635" data-attributes="member: 324">I have, yup, but only while grossly mis-using the knife, and it was a poor quality one.Usually things bend when prying...I just thought, he must be an idiot to keep these things, after he used them in the commission of a crime.&nbsp; He could have tossed them off any one of the bridges crossing the Missouri.&nbsp; Unless someone actually saw it, and knew what they saw, they'd never be found. Anyhow, with this whole thing, the attorneys know what they're doing.&nbsp; The prosecution has a mountain of material, and they're laying it out in an orderly, logical fashion.&nbsp; The burden of proof is on them.&nbsp; They have to be able to honestly show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he did it, and that he did it without a whiff of any mental lapses or issues.&nbsp; Otherwise, the penalty, if found guilty, is going to be reduced.As I said before, I think he's guilty, but I know that the jurors have to be utterly convinced, not by what they might have read in the paper or online, or heard from friends and neighbors, but by what's laid out in the courtroom.&nbsp; As a matter of fact, they have to be able to convince both attorneys that they can be open-minded during selection, or they'd be stricken before the trial.It's not very cut-and-dried at all.Honestly, (devil's advocate here) this lack of emotion could be part of his eventual defense.&nbsp; Some could point at him and say &quot;look, he didn't even know what was going on during his own trial - he clearly has diminished mental reasoning&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JayKay, post: 327635, member: 324"] I have, yup, but only while grossly mis-using the knife, and it was a poor quality one. Usually things bend when prying... I just thought, he must be an idiot to keep these things, after he used them in the commission of a crime. He could have tossed them off any one of the bridges crossing the Missouri. Unless someone actually saw it, and knew what they saw, they'd never be found. Anyhow, with this whole thing, the attorneys know what they're doing. The prosecution has a mountain of material, and they're laying it out in an orderly, logical fashion. The burden of proof is on them. They have to be able to honestly show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he did it, and that he did it without a whiff of any mental lapses or issues. Otherwise, the penalty, if found guilty, is going to be reduced. As I said before, I think he's guilty, but I know that the jurors have to be utterly convinced, not by what they might have read in the paper or online, or heard from friends and neighbors, but by what's laid out in the courtroom. As a matter of fact, they have to be able to convince both attorneys that they can be open-minded during selection, or they'd be stricken before the trial. It's not very cut-and-dried at all. Honestly, (devil's advocate here) this lack of emotion could be part of his eventual defense. Some could point at him and say "look, he didn't even know what was going on during his own trial - he clearly has diminished mental reasoning". [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA