Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
You must of missed the original question. Why aren't the neighbors asked ?
The police in DC searched the same area the Chandra Levy was found in too.
I explained, that is where I started before reading the evidence. Now that I have the opinion that he did it, I still have an open mind as to explantions that counter that opinion. If I am given none, then I will be left with that opinion.
That is where? Where did you you start? You are not being very clear. Be explicit, please.
No opinion until reading about the physical evidence in the RV, then I formed an opinion.
I don't find it credible to explain the physical evidence in the RV. I also have no evidence that children ever played there.
Further you have on these threads heard from mothers of children and such who have stated that kids do play in RV's parked in the neighborhood. An RV is like a "attractive nuisance" in that way.
To ignore common sense in order to arrive at guilt is not presumption of innocence. And that is what you are doing.
There is no evidence presented that any child ever played in this RV.
Based on the evidence presented there is only fingerprints, blood like substance and hair root in RV. There is none, zilch, nada evidence of any child let alone Danielle ever being in the RV to play.
I started with a presumption of innocence as of three days ago and I am open to change my mind when additional evidence is presented. As of now, my presumption is leaning towards guilty therefore my current opinion is guilty.
I am uncomfortable with the bug guys stuff and unless I were to get some rebuttle on that I would insure that my jury were hung.
Second, even though the RV may have been opened there must be at least one child who was in there besides Danielle. The fact that the defense hasn't gotten at least one child who played there or one parent who saw kids enter there is telling to me that the defense is blowing smoke.
In order to do that you must ignore the common sense explanation that Danielle played in the RV at some time or times unknown.
Unfair, and a violation of oath if you were a juror.
Wrong. I'm not a juror but even a juror will go through same process even if they are told they don't. We all form intial opinions.
Maybe I can diagram it for you
1. No opinion + evidence = initial opinion (The prosecution presents its case)
2. Initial opinion - alternate explanations = final opinion.(Defense anwers)
I am at stage 1 because the defense is still presenting. So far what the defense has presented under "alternate explanations" is zilch in my mind. The trial isn't over but I don't expect to hear from a child or parent regarding playing there. Even if I did, I doubt that would be enough to explain the physical evidence in the RV but it would certainly help.
Re: reasonable doubt
We've all speculated as to what the term 'reasonable doubt' means. Here, from pp 52-53 of "Criminal Law," Professor LaFave's hornbook (not to be confused with "horndog") is what "reasonable doubt" means:
"There must be an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." Reasonable doubt is "that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."
LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.
Just though you all might find this instructive/helpful/interesting.
As an aside, VRWC_minion, it is not the job of the defense to "prove" anything, including how the hair got into the MH. It is the job of the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that DW kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have shown that she was kidnapped and killed, but they have not shown a) who did it OR b)when it was done OR c)how it was done.
There are holes in the prosecution's case big enough to drive the MH through. Irrespective of your "feelings" about how one should view the presumptions and burdens of proof, DW is innocent, in a legal and factual sense, until the prosecution produces enough evidence for the jury to find, to a moral certainty, that he was the one that kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have completely failed in that regard, and it is my prediction that DW will be found innocent of the charges.
I agree. so all I am left with is the cuurent evidence. Therefore based on the evidence presented so far I believe he is guilty. If he did however present other evidence I might change my mind.
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.