[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 3/8/01
Time: 1:28:42 PM
To comment on what John wrote:
It was repeatedly said on LKL last night that this seemed to happen for a Lack of another suspect.
Also, one cop got it in his head that morning that they were guilty and the others fell in line.
Also on the heels of Susan Smith and the Ramsey case, the cops didn't want to look stupid.
I read a book a long time ago (wish I could recall what it was) that was about the Bobby Kennedy assasination case and investigation. The author told of how SHOCKED and AMAZED he became with lawyers and prosecutors that he interviewed for the book who made a decision about the guilt of innocence of a person based on whether or not they were convicted. It seems that there is no such thing as an innocent person being convicted. It was conviction EQUALS guilt. Said it happened with defense attorneys as well. It became that the SECOND that their Innocent client is convicted, they BECOME guilty.
It was not the FACTS of the case that mattered. It was not that the case was proven or not proven but whether their is a conviction.
So an arrest=trial=conviction=absolute guilt. As was said in the prior post, even if new evidence or a video of the crime being done by another party--that doesn't matter. The person is guilty by way of being convicted.
Could this explain the resistence we see and hear where prosecutors refuse to change their minds for the most part even with DNA evidence or a confession by another party or alibi or whatever?
As was said, probable cause, a possible motive, some evidence (even if more evidence is there for innocence)etc. is what is important--not whether or not the person is truly guilty or not?
THink how RARE it is in the case in England last year when a 14 marker (OJ's was only 6) DNA test showed the suspect to be guilty but the suspect had an alibi that the cops went one step FURTHER and ran the DNA test with More markers and found that with more than 14 markers, it DID NOT match.
When you think about it--in the OJS case, it was the evidence (easily accessible by several people) --the "mountain of evidence"--that was stressed. Not the MOtive, not the WAY it was done or could it be done in the time allowed, not that no blood trail goes to the glove, nor does blood go up the bedroom or bath. Nor the fact no blood clothes were found, nor the weapon, etc.
The MOtive was ify. Real ify. For insisting that spouse violence was the motive, they put on little or no evidence to that. And ignored real possible motives (money, child custody, anger(argument), jealously, etc.
I think John has hit the nail on the head. charlie