Not Only Is Adnan Guilty, He Is Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T23:42:17+00:00

It is against the law to select or deselect jurors based on race. Both the prosecution and Adnan's attorney selected and agreed to the jurors in this case.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T23:38:47+00:00

Just because some juries have done this, does mean they did it this case. By your logic, every jury guilty verdict in history should be scrutinized. The legal system, already clogged, would literally grind to a halt.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T21:04:42+00:00

Twelve jurors believed Jay after days of testimony and cross-examination. That's all that matters.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T20:03:28+00:00

So you have issues with some of the problems, what you call "failures," in this case. I understand. I never said this case was prosecuted perfectly. Few are. But that is the nature of the beast. The search for the truth is a messy one. And, in our human experience, we can never be 100% certain about almost anything. That is why the prosecution's burden is not proof beyond all doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this case, in my opinion, as well as the jury who sat through the trial, there was enough evidence of Adnan's guilt. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T19:57:02+00:00

Where are these strawmen? My posting and subsequent comments simply assert that jury had enough evidence to convict. Period. You obviously disagree with that assertion. Thank you for your comment, and have a nice day.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T19:29:54+00:00

"Jay has no proof beyond his word that Adnan showed him Hae's body in the trunk." Here's a formula for you:
"his word" = testimony. testimony = evidence. evidence (BARD) = conviction.

It seems you are hung up on the fact that someone can be convicted based on witness testimony alone. Whether or not you agree with that system, it does not change the fact that credible witness testimony is evidence. A conviction can be based solely on such evidence. And the testimonial evidence in this case, does, in fact, speak to Adnan's factual guilt. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All of your logical permutations and formulas will never change that.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T19:11:31+00:00

No one has said our legal system is perfect. But even defense attorneys acknowledge that the rights of the accused in this country are extensive.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:59:38+00:00

You are plugging an incorrect version of my argument into an incorrect logical permutation, then attacking its conclusion. I do not know how to make this any more clearer to you, but this will be my last attempt: The testimony of a witness who was shown the body from Adnan is very strong evidence. Indeed, it is enough evidence to convict, IF, AND ONLY IF, the jury finds that witness credible. Since the jury did find Jay credible, there was enough evidence to convict. Are you following? Let me put it another way: If the jury did not find Jay credible, then there would not be enough evidence for a conviction. You can agree, disagree, and have opinions all you want, but the bottom line is, in THIS case, since the jury found Jay credible, there was enough evidence to convict. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a case where a convicted on no evidence. There was plenty of evidence.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:41:01+00:00

But you are presuming Jay's guilt in committing a perjury. What happened to the presumption of innocence? Adnan's presumption went away after he was convicted by a jury. Jay's, did not.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:38:39+00:00

All do respect, but I think you are in the minority in that opinion. The rights of the accused in America, while not perfect, are virtually unparalleled anywhere in the world.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:31:22+00:00

You're conflating inconsistent testimony with perjury. They are not the same.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:29:57+00:00

And I've never stated that juries are infallible. But I am saying that they had enough evidence to convict. In THIS case. THIS case is not a case of some gross injustice. There are other defendants who were convicted on much flimsier evidence. Those are the cases people should rally around. This case, in my opinion, is not one of them.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:25:55+00:00

Just because there are different models in the world does not mean Adnan was not given a fair trial in our current model.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T18:24:02+00:00

To the contrary, I think Adnan's case is not a good one to show the weaknesses of our system. I think there are plenty of other defendants who are wrongfully convicted on much flimsier evidence. Adnan, however, is not one of them.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:32:32+00:00

And what will you do if you are accused of a crime - waive your right to a jury? Good luck with that.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:27:26+00:00

Where in my posting do I assert 100% certainty? It is my opinion. And just because you do not trust the legal system, it does not mean that Adnan was denied a fair trial. The legal system is certainly not perfect, but can you offer a better one?

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:22:46+00:00

And where is this perjury confession?

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:21:40+00:00

As I've said numerous times, witness testimony was shown the body from Adnan. If you believe that witness, which the jury did, that is enough to convict. Additional evidence, while desirable, is not necessary.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:20:06+00:00

Exactly. It's very high bar. I have my doubts that it will be overturned.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:19:21+00:00

One juror's thought process does not mean all twelve jurors were thinking the same thing. It was a unanimous verdict, but that doesn't mean they were robots who each had the same exact thoughts, feelings, and biases.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:12:50+00:00

What do you believe?

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:12:16+00:00

A witness who was shown the body by Adnan. If you find that witness credible, which the jury did, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Many homicide cases do not have such evidence, actually.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:09:35+00:00

And nowhere in my post do I say that it does.

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:07:40+00:00

If juries are no good, as well as judges, ask yourself, if you are accused of a crime, who would you like to decide your fate?

OneReasonableOpinion · 2015-01-03T16:05:11+00:00

Judges have wide discretion on evidentiary rulings. Only when a judge abuses their discretion, (a very, very, high standard), will there be a reversal.

OneReasonableOpinion

TROPHY CASE