DA's objectivity

[BBB167893]

Dave,

My point is that if LE had even screwed that up too, a jury, judge, or anyone else for that matter would listen to any other evidence that they may have. Your dog could defend the defendant and win.

You made your point clear. I just wasn't sure if I had made mine clear.

 

[BBB167893]

Sure it is .... and could be proven.

If someone had the gumption and inclination.

Why's that? That's how I write? if I'm not sure of a term or ? it's a habbit.

Never mind then.

Hi SD.
? can't all the observations made about PR's handwriting and her given ranking as can not be excluded, be interchanged with the observations to be made of hand writing of the mock trial IDI, as seen in the rn? Just wondering about that limitation as well, if there is no reference point to the IDI's sample exemplars ....

I suppose, but my point is that I have an actual visual comparison to use. Last I knew, the other side does not.

 

[Tadpole12]

I suppose, but my point is that I have an actual visual comparison to use. Last I knew, the other side does not.

Ok.
I see what you mean.

 

[Roy23]

Okay, folks, no more stalling. I said I was game, and I am. Roy, HOTYH, you wanted a list of points that I'm planning to use. Well, you're in luck. When I was compiling them for the book, I wrote them down in a list fashion just so people could read them in the fashion you suggest.

I think you guys should keep in mind that as a defense atty., I'm not limited by the rule that says you have to decide who did what like the prosecutor is. I can point to the Rs in the collective sense. All I need is reasonable doubt. HOTYH has to pin specific crimes on specific people. But, I think he knows that, and that's why he decided to go with conspiracy charges.

Right-o. Without further ado, here you are:

1) Fibers from the clothing the Rs were known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, tied into the knots of the neck ligature, inside the blanket used to wrap her body, inside the little box PR kept her art supplies in, and inside her underwear.

2) Receipts from the hardware store.

3) Inconsistent statements and dirty tricks by private investigators.

4) Burke's Swiss Army knife.

5) Witness statements from CASKU agents, BPD officials, forensic experts, etc.

6) Autopsy findings, including witness statements about prior abuse.

7) Obviously, I can't use any expert testimony on handwriting until I find out what it permissable. But I do plan to use some direct visual comparisons (which is how this whole deal got started, lest we forget) and patterns.

I think that will do nicely.

Points number 5 and 6 is something that I am very interested in. I am interested in the others too but I look forward most of all, to those two. You know, I don't really care what is brought up about the RN. I just think for every person you has that says PR wrote it, more will tell you that she did not. And I am really hesitant when someone says it is an exact match. I would be more interested in your conclusions of the writing instead of some publicity hunting expert.

 

[Roy23]

You made your point clear. I just wasn't sure if I had made mine clear.

Dave,

If you were a juror in a trial against the Ramsey's and it took 13 years to discover that LE contaminated DNA. (let's say it is an officers DNA) With this, could you remotely give the fiber evidence any kind of credence? Especially when you consider all the other mistakes made in containing the crime scene.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Fibers found on JBR belong to the R's, while DNA found on JBR are unrelated to the crime, according to the standard RDI.

Even though fibers, unlike DNA, can only be 'consistent with' an item of clothing. The statement 'those black fibers came from that shirt' isn't valid, from what I've read, as fibers can't be 'traced' as DNA can.

'Consistent with' is as good as it gets with fiber.

 

[BBB167893]

Points number 5 and 6 is something that I am very interested in. I am interested in the others too but I look forward most of all, to those two.

May I ask why? (Not that I won't oblige you.)

You know, I don't really care what is brought up about the RN. I just think for every person you has that says PR wrote it, more will tell you that she did not.

Even if that's true (and it seems to be the other way, from where I am), to me it's a question of quality, not quantity.

And I am really hesitant when someone says it is an exact match.

Not really sure how to respond to that.

I would be more interested in your conclusions of the writing instead of some publicity hunting expert.

My response to that is two-fold:

1) Am I to assume you mean me personally?

2) As for publicity-hunting experts, I won't say that such a person does not exist. I'm sure there are many like that. What I object to is this idea, which the Rs themselves and some of the more extreme IDIs (we ALL know who I'm talking about) have raised to an art form, and that is that ANY expert who says "PR wrote it" is a hack only out for glory. HOTYH chides me and my side for "making up stories" and "fabricating easy answers," but it seems to me that this is one of the more glaring examples of the IDI side doing just that.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear, Roy: I'm not accusing YOU of doing that. From what I know of you, you seem genuinely interested in learning about this case and having an honest debate. I applaud you for that. But it just seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the IDIs aren't out to win a debate so much as they are out to stop it before it happens.

Just spitballing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Okay, folks, no more stalling. I said I was game, and I am. Roy, HOTYH, you wanted a list of points that I'm planning to use. Well, you're in luck. When I was compiling them for the book, I wrote them down in a list fashion just so people could read them in the fashion you suggest.

I think you guys should keep in mind that as a defense atty., I'm not limited by the rule that says you have to decide who did what like the prosecutor is. I can point to the Rs in the collective sense. All I need is reasonable doubt. HOTYH has to pin specific crimes on specific people. But, I think he knows that, and that's why he decided to go with conspiracy charges.

Right-o. Without further ado, here you are:

1) Fibers from the clothing the Rs were known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, tied into the knots of the neck ligature, inside the blanket used to wrap her body, inside the little box PR kept her art supplies in, and inside her underwear.

2) Receipts from the hardware store.

3) Inconsistent statements and dirty tricks by private investigators.

4) Burke's Swiss Army knife.

5) Witness statements from CASKU agents, BPD officials, forensic experts, etc.

6) Autopsy findings, including witness statements about prior abuse.

7) Obviously, I can't use any expert testimony on handwriting until I find out what it permissable. But I do plan to use some direct visual comparisons (which is how this whole deal got started, lest we forget) and patterns.

I think that will do nicely.

I think the prosecution is supposed to present its facts to the judge first, before the defense. To be fair, suppose we have two trials. The items you've listed above seem more appropriate for prosecuting the R's where SD is the prosecutor.

A defender of the pseudonym defendant would have to consider the charges against the defendant first and defend against those charges.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

If you were a juror in a trial against the Ramsey's

Not an image you'd care for, I'm sure!

and it took 13 years to discover that LE contaminated DNA. (let's say it is an officers DNA)

Let's say.

With this, could you remotely give the fiber evidence any kind of credence? Especially when you consider all the other mistakes made in containing the crime scene.

I had a feeling you'd ask that, Roy. And on the face of it, you make a good point. There's no denying that.
But as I so often say, I take a much more holistic view of the case, and to that end, I would remind you that it's not just the fibers themselves, it's everything that goes with them. One of which (one of many) is PR's own attempted explanation about how they got there, an explanation which is directly contradicted by JR's account in their book, DOI. Oops!

 

[BBB167893]

Fibers found on JBR belong to the R's, while DNA found on JBR are unrelated to the crime, according to the standard RDI.

I would think I've made myself clear by now.

Even though fibers, unlike DNA, can only be 'consistent with' an item of clothing. The statement 'those black fibers came from that shirt' isn't valid, from what I've read, as fibers can't be 'traced' as DNA can.

'Consistent with' is as good as it gets with fiber.

Get a load of this guy! Trial hasn't even started yet, and he's already laying arguments! LOL

You should read a little further, HOTYH. I wrote a few passages in the book covering that very thing. I am prepared. Don't worry about me.

 

[BBB167893]

I think the prosecution is supposed to present its facts to the judge first, before the defense.

He asked, HOTYH. But to be fair, I suppose I did jump the gun a bit.

To be fair, suppose we have two trials. The items you've listed above seem more appropriate for prosecuting the R's where SD is the prosecutor.

Agreed. Old habits die hard. But so far, no one has said I can't use them.

A defender of the pseudonym defendant would have to consider the charges against the defendant first and defend against those charges.

I suppose you're right, but to me it's not really important. I KNOW what the defense will be: the Rs did it. See, I'm of them ind that the best defense is a darn good offense!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

He asked, HOTYH. But to be fair, I suppose I did jump the gun a bit.



Agreed. Old habits die hard. But so far, no one has said I can't use them.



I suppose you're right, but to me it's not really important. I KNOW what the defense will be: the Rs did it. See, I'm of them ind that the best defense is a darn good offense!

I'll let BOESP, Ames, Roy23, or some other judge nominee to decide if you're allowed to defend the pseudonym defendant with an attempt to show someone else is really guilty. My guess is thats not mock-legal.

 

[Roy23]

I'll let BOESP, Ames, Roy23, or some other judge nominee to decide if you're allowed to defend the pseudonym defendant with an attempt to show someone else is really guilty. My guess is thats not mock-legal.

Hmmm! I see where you are going. And in a real trial you might be right. I think you guys need to hash some of this out beforehand. I like and respect you both. This should be about learning and not winning. What do you guys think?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hmmm! I see where you are going. And in a real trial you might be right. I think you guys need to hash some of this out beforehand. I like and respect you both. This should be about learning and not winning. What do you guys think?

I looked it up, and apparently it is mock-legal.

"The better approach ...is to review the admissibility of third-party culpability evidence under the general balancing analysis that governs the admissibility of all evidence."​

Admissible evidence, in a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court"]court[/ame] of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law"]law[/ame], is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder--usually a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge"]judge[/ame] or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury"]jury[/ame]--in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.
For evidence to be relevant, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact that is at issue in the proceeding. However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the factfinder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it will not be admissible. Furthermore, certain public-policy considerations bar the admission of otherwise relevant evidence.
For evidence to be reliable enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If the evidence is in the form of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness"]witness[/ame] testimony, the party introducing the evidence must [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_a_foundation"]lay the groundwork[/ame] for the credibility of the witness, and his knowledge of the things to which he attests. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay"]Hearsay[/ame] is generally barred for its lack of reliability. If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody"]chain of custody[/ame] from the original author to the present holder. The trial judge performs a "gatekeeping" role in excluding unreliable testimony. The United States Supreme Court first addressed the reliability requirement for experts in the landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow

I'm not the judge, but I'm not that worried about what SD wants to bring. Who is the judge??

Here come the judge... Here come the judge...

 

[BBB167893]

I was pretty sure it is legal.

One thing's sure: I'd rather have a judge go over what is and isn't admissable than have the opposition tell me what I can and can't do.

 

[Roy23]

I was pretty sure it is legal.

One thing's sure: I'd rather have a judge go over what is and isn't admissable than have the opposition tell me what I can and can't do.

This is why I am wondering if I am qualified.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is why I am wondering if I am qualified.

You've already started judging.

SD and I were supposed to hash things out first, remember? That was your first instruction.

Hey, SD you've got no shortage of RDI around here. What about a balanced IDI-leaning judge??

BTW, whats good for the goose... How about I defend the R's, and use 3rd-party culpability?

 

[Roy23]

You've already started judging.

SD and I were supposed to hash things out first, remember? That was your first instruction.

Hey, SD you've got no shortage of RDI around here. What about a balanced IDI-leaning judge??

BTW, whats good for the goose... How about I defend the R's, and use 3rd-party culpability?

I am saying I need some help regarding the law. I don't care if I am picked but are saying I am not balanced. I am trying to make sure I don't lean the ball your way.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am saying I need some help regarding the law. I don't care if I am picked but are saying I am not balanced. I am trying to make sure I don't lean the ball your way.

This could be one of the main roles. From wiki:

In the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States"]law of the United States of America[/ame], an objection is a formal protest raised in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_court"]court[/ame] during a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial"]trial[/ame] to disallow a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness"]witness[/ame]'s [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony"]testimony[/ame] or other evidence which would be in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge"]judge[/ame] then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" (the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the question, testimony, or evidence) or "overruled" (the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the question, testimony, or evidence). An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it.
An objection may also be raised against a judge's ruling, in order to preserve the right to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal"]appeal[/ame] the ruling.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Rules of evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case"]case[/ame] may be placed before a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact"]trier of fact[/ame] for consideration.
In the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_systems_of_the_world"]legal systems[/ame] of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"]Canada[/ame] and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States"]United States[/ame], the trier of fact may be a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge"]judge[/ame] or a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury"]jury[/ame], depending on the purpose of the trial and the choices of the parties.
The rules of evidence developed over several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law"]common Law[/ame] brought to the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World"]New World[/ame] by early settlers. Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact. They are sometimes criticized as a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technicality"]legal technicality[/ame], but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result.
Prevailing in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence in the given venue. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. One reason to have a lawyer, among others, is that he or she should be familiar with the rules of evidence. If one were allowed simply to tell the court what one knew to be the truth, and how one knew it, one might prevail. However, the rules of evidence may prohibit one from presenting one's story just as one likes.
Perhaps the most important of the Rules of Evidence is that [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay"]hearsay[/ame] testimony is inadmissible (although there are many exceptions to this rule). This makes it impossible for the accuser to induce friends or family to give false evidence in support of their accusations because, normally, this evidence would be rejected by the presiding authority or judge. There are several examples where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include the military tribunals established by the United States of America and tribunals used in Australia to try health professionals.
Some important rules involve relevance, privilege, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness"]witnesses[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion"]opinions[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness"]expert testimony[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay"]hearsay[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity"]authenticity[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification"]identification[/ame] and rules of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_evidence"]physical evidence[/ame].