Posted on 02/07/2005 1:21:00 PM PST by Former Military Chick
That is the standard for a criminal conviction. In civil cases, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence".
Most of the cases in this scandal have been civil (or settled out of court). Many of the potential criminal cases could not be brought because of the statute of limitations. This one was an exception to that because they decided the clock stopped when Shanley moved out of the state (an absurd conclusion, albeit with a good result!).
I understand. Thank you.
< I would hope they did know the other background, because the alternative is that they would convict a guy "in the absence of a case". He's clearly guilty as hell, but the state didn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt. >
Not beyond a resonable doubt to who? You? A dozen citizens disagree with you. Did you listen to the young man testify? Good Lord, I didn't have a dog in this hunt and I was crying. He was extremely credible. What makes you think that you can't convict someone if you believe the victim is telling the truth?
If that was the case, the jury would've come back with a verdict of not guilty. But they didn't--the jury came back with a verdict of guilty on all counts.
defrocked Priest PING
because some people are congenital liars.
I am afraid that I once ran up against one of these. They can be so convincing that I was nearly prosecuted for a crime I had no knowledge of. It changed my entire perspective of law and justice. It also changed my life.
Since that time, over twenty years ago, I have never trusted anyone outright. I do not take their words and emotions as truth anymore. Except for those who have earned my trust.
There was a time that I was disappointed by people but I believed in the true goodness of humans.
Now I am no longer surprised by some of the loathsome things they are inclined to do to anyone for any reason, and usually for no reason at all.
It seriously changes ones perspective when viewing a trial. This is why I detest the emphasis on circumstantial evidence. I need hard evidence and not circumstantial or witness testimony.
Drives them (lawyers)nuts when I am picked for jury duty.:-)
Thanks for the ping!
BTT!!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!
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.