This is worth inserting into this current thread on Durst. SO9 just answered me on the old thread:
To: GalvestonGal.com
"I agree with another freeper who said "Why have humans?" I think it was a verdict devoid of justice. I guess Durst got a jury of his peers - coldblooded and not in touch with reality."
So9 reply:
The alternative to requiring the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt is allowing conviction on a wink and a nod. Conviction because 'everyone knows he did it' or 'he could have done it' or 'he's one of those'.
Once juries start figuring out things that were not said in the trial, we are all guilty until proven innocent.
If a District Attourney is stupid enough to send a second string prosecutor up against Dick DeGuerin, he is gonna lose every time, regardless of guilt.
If people are mad about the outcome, they should direct all their anger where it belongs, at the DA who screwed up from start to finish.
So9
158 posted on 11/13/2003 6:12 PM CST by Servant of the 9 (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Thanks So9. You're right.
not buying it.......
There was plenty of evidence, plenty of history, plenty of motive, plenty of opportunity......
in short.....the jury ignored what they wanted too...
in that case, when a jury does not evaluate the evidence, if they are making a "statement" against authority, or when they are purely idiotic people with little capability to actually think , then no DA in the world is going to convince them......
this is what you get when jury pools eliminate people that watch the news, read books and newspapers and magazines, or listen to the radio....
IOWS .....the jury pool eliminates anyone who keeps current on news, science, business, crime......
they want dodo's for jurist and that's what they get too often, sadly....