Casey Anthony Trial

[TonyJoey]

No, Jane fell off the boat and drowned. Jack grieves differently than other people. That doesn't mean he murdered her.

[kilo2]

I disagree.

Purely hypothetical situation for conjecture here:

Say Jack and Jane go out on a boat trip, plenty of witnesses see them leave.  Only Jack comes back.  No body, no evidence of struggle, that's that.  Jack says he doesn't know what happened, he was napping and he woke up and she was gone.  Oh and btw, Jack parties his butt off for the next month after this happens.  Not murder?

Not unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was murder and he did it. I am sorry but there is things in place so innocent people won't go to jail and it should stay that way. If a guilty person gets away with a crime every once in a while then so be it but its much better than a innocent person going to jail every now and then.

[Jayhawk]

I disagree.

Purely hypothetical situation for conjecture here:

Say Jack and Jane go out on a boat trip, plenty of witnesses see them leave.  Only Jack comes back.  No body, no evidence of struggle, that's that.  Jack says he doesn't know what happened, he was napping and he woke up and she was gone.  Oh and btw, Jack parties his butt off for the next month after this happens.  Not murder?

Poor example IMO, there are 100 other things that could have happened besides murder.

[grizz441]

Okay Kilo, I'll play that game, what burden of proof percentage wise is "shadow of a doubt"?  90% confident? 95% confident? 99.9% confident?  How about this.  If 10 guilty people go away per one innocent is that too many innocent? What about 100 guilty people/innocent person?  Is that still too many innocent? What needs to be the success rate? I would like "shadow of a doubt" quantified because it's incredibly easy to say things like that without actually explaining what it means.  It's also incredibly easy to say "I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to prison".

[TonyJoey]

Okay Kilo, I'll play that game, what burden of proof percentage wise is "shadow of a doubt"?  90% confident? 95% confident? 99.9% confident?  How about this.  If 10 guilty people go away per one innocent is that too many innocent? What about 100 guilty people/innocent person?  Is that still too many innocent? What needs to be the success rate? I would like "shadow of a doubt" quantified because it's incredibly easy to say things like that without actually explaining what it means.  It's also incredibly easy to say "I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to prison".

There's a reason shadow of a doubt isn't used.

[grizz441]

Poor example IMO, there are 100 other things that could have happened besides murder.

Well just so you know, Jack pushed her off the boat in the middle of the ocean. He got back waving and smiling and said oh hey btw my wife vanished when I was sleeping, time to hit the bars!

[TonyJoey]

Well just so you know, Jack pushed her off the boat in the middle of the ocean. He got back waving and smiling and said oh hey btw my wife vanished when I was sleeping, time to hit the bars!

What about it? There's no proof that he pushed her off. It's just as likely she fell off the boat and drowned. Therefore, it's just as likely you send an innocent person to jail as a guilty person, which doesn't come close to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[grizz441]

What about it? There's no proof that he pushed her off. It's just as likely she fell off the boat and drowned. Therefore, it's just as likely you send an innocent person to jail as a guilty person, which doesn't come close to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not true because if she fell off she would likely be screaming for help and Jack would wake up from his slumber, stop the boat and turn around and help her.  But Jack is a "heavy sleeper" and didn't hear her.  Now there are ex girlfriends coming as witnesses to either discount that he is a heavy sleeper or a light sleeper.  The verdict of the case hinges in the testimony of these ex's declaring how heavy he sleeps.  BUT! He ate a big meal before they left so he was especially tired and it was also sunny so he was feeling kind of drained.  Oh man the drama.  Jack walks because the jury needed video evidence that he pushed her.

And why did she fall off?  She was a college athlete and had great balance and ocean smarts.  She would not be standing in a spot where she could possibly fall off.  Witnesses can attest to that.

[TonyJoey]

Not true because if she fell off she would likely be screaming for help and Jack would wake up from his slumber, stop the boat and turn around and help her.  But Jack is a "heavy sleeper" and didn't hear her.  Now there are ex girlfriends coming as witnesses to either discount that he is a heavy sleeper or a light sleeper.  The verdict of the case hinges in the testimony of these ex's declaring how heavy he sleeps.  BUT! He ate a big meal before they left so he was especially tired and it was also sunny so he was feeling kind of drained.  Oh man the drama.  Jack walks because the jury needed video evidence that he pushed her.

You said likely. Likely doesn't meet a reasonable doubt either. You don't have proof she made a peep. I'm assuming he's sleeping inside, so I would bring in expert testimony about the soundproof-ness, for lack of a better word, of the walls and where he was in relation to her and how that would affect how well he could hear her, of which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether she actually screamed in the first place.

[Jayhawk]

How do we know she screamed?  Maybe Jane ran off with another guy while Jack was asleep.

[grizz441]

You said likely. Likely doesn't meet a reasonable doubt either. You don't have proof she made a peep. I'm assuming he's sleeping inside, so I would bring in expert testimony about the soundproof-ness, for lack of a better word, of the walls and where he was in relation to her and how that would affect how well he could hear her, of which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether she actually screamed in the first place.

Okay so basically your interpretation of reasonable doubt is like 99.99% certain then.  Even though you know Jack did it, you do not place any legal value in circumstantial evidence?

How did Scott Peterson get convicted of 1st degree murder if circumstantial evidence is not evidence?

[grizz441]

How do we know she screamed?  Maybe Jane ran off with another guy while Jack was asleep.

Because several witnesses saw them leave dock together.  They went on a fishing trip, only Jack came back.  We can safely assume she screamed because had she fallen overboard, the boat had no obstructions that would render her unconscious upon hitting the water.  The natural reaction upon falling out of a moving boat is to scream so we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt this occurred if she did in fact fall overboard.

[TonyJoey]

Okay so basically your interpretation of reasonable doubt is like 99.99% certain then.  Even though you know Jack did it, you do not place any legal value in circumstantial evidence?

How did Scott Peterson get convicted of 1st degree murder if circumstantial evidence is not evidence?

What do you mean even though I know Jack did it? And since when does likely=99.99%? I do put value in circumstancial evidence. You better have a lot of it to convict though. The more details you add to your story, the closer you get to passing reasonable doubt. However, in the original debate- the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial- there wasn't enough circumstancial evidence to convict.

[TonyJoey]

You seem to be adding details to your case as you go. Oh, and another scenario; she committed suicide.

[grizz441]

What do you mean even though I know Jack did it? If I knew he did it, that's hard evidence. And since when does likely=99.99%?

If you think you will ever get hard evidence out of a well calculated murder, no, I won't even go that far, an average murder plot, then you are dreaming.  Apparently even having the perfect motive for a crime is not evidence.  

Lets get even crazier.  Say Jill is found shot dead with a bullet from Jack's gun.  Isn't this not still circumstantial evidence?  We still do not know what happened.  We still have to use circumstantial logic to deduce that Jack shot her, since it was his gun, but we do not know that.  There is still no evidence he shot her.