Posted on 12/13/2004 11:38:45 AM PST by kcvl
Fox News...
After listening to these three jurors, I have to agree 110 percent.
Juror: He saw anger in Scott, would have liked to see more remorse.
Greta's show is going surpass O'Reilly's tonight, that's for sure.
Juror requested to see the pictures of Connor and Lacy. They never got to hold the pictures, was never really close to the pictures. The pictures made it a little more human. (my words).
But one other question: What's latin for "Who's your daddy?"? Just curious.
It is the worst justice system in the world, except for all the rest.
whos su papá
circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact.
There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential.
Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=191&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
Guilt?
They would be guilty if they did not sentence him to die.
Accomplices after the fact.
Gen. 9:6
Regards
Quis est pater tuus?
Does it sound profound?
One of the juror said he thought that Scott killed Lacy because he wanted his freedom, divorce was not an answer, Amber Frey was not the reason. Scott wanted his freedom.
Took the first poll I believe on Friday 6 Death 4 people on hold and 2 for life.
DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference - Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
CIRCUMSTANCES - The particulars which accompany a fact.
The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.
These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime.
Mike Farrell stared in MASH on TV. He is an anti-war, anti-death penalty insufferable Hollywood leftist actor.
Did not take a poll at first because they did not want that to be the dividing factor.
Laura came on almost every night at 11pm on the John Zigler show. Yes, she has now gained a national reputation. She is good.
The forman expressed his condolences to both families.
Truly. They are good people. Once again the innate common sense and wisdom of the American people comes through. These three people are articulate and smart. No problem with listening to their answers. They are firm in their beliefs and reasons for their decisions.
Wow, "Pinky" overwhelmed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.