DA's objectivity

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.

 

[Roy23]

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 case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.
In the legal systems of Canada and the United States, the trier of fact may be a judge or a jury, 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 common Law brought to the New World 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 legal technicality, 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 hearsay 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, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, hearsay, authenticity, identification and rules of physical evidence.

Holdon,

In laymans terms or in a nutshell, what are you saying? I feel that you are saying that I am favoring Dave before any proceeding. I am certainly not a legal expert. And I plan on doing things not just by law, but what I deem right or wrong or relevant versus non relevant. And I want help. I sure as hell don't want to be biased but Dave is the one that really should be worried about my feelings about the case as it stands.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,

In laymans terms or in a nutshell, what are you saying? I feel that you are saying that I am favoring Dave before any proceeding. I am certainly not a legal expert. And I plan on doing things not just by law, but what I deem right or wrong or relevant versus non relevant. And I want help. I sure as hell don't want to be biased but Dave is the one that really should be worried about my feelings about the case as it stands.

If there's no jury, then I think we need more judges for balance. If there's a jury, then according to another poster, the judges feelings are kept separate from their duty.

 

[Roy23]

If there's no jury, then I think we need more judges for balance. If there's a jury, then according to another poster, the judges feelings are kept separate from their duty.

I think you make an excellent point here. That is why I asked you and Dave both for another confidant to assist me. If there is a jury and I am judge, I could keep my feelings separate but I am not sure that I understand the law enough to be qualified. I tend to do things that I deem fair but may not be necessarily from law school since I am not a lawyer. I am for more judges but I want to know that they don't have an agenda. I addressed this previously and I want you to read it.. I could be a juror instead.

 

[BBB167893]

You've already started judging.

Yeah, make up your mind.

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??

I guess if I had to settle, I could live with that. As long as that person could be balanced.

I'd still prefer three fence-sitting jurors, ideally.

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

Easy, HOTYH. We haven't even agreed as to the ins and outs of ONE trial, and you're already talking about a second one. Which, to me, makes no sense. Why have a second one. The whole point of THIS one is to see which side is more convincing to the average person. Don't forget that.

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.

I also think it's best to concentrate on one thing at a time.

 

[BBB167893]

holdon,

in laymans terms or in a nutshell, what are you saying? I feel that you are saying that i am favoring dave before any proceeding. I am certainly not a legal expert. And i plan on doing things not just by law, but what i deem right or wrong or relevant versus non relevant. And i want help. i sure as hell don't want to be biased but dave is the one that really should be worried about my feelings about the case as it stands.

Believe me, I AM!

 

[Ravyn]

I would have to agree about the three fence-sitting jurors..Just my opinion...

 

[Ames]

I am prosecuting, SuperDave is defending. Your last question would be against the forum rules to answer. Its a pseudonym intruder. Its a real person, like a JR or a PR or a JMK but according to the forum rules, can't use their name. Its OK somehow to refer to JR or PR by name but nobody else.

If nothing else, it would show how there are in fact other scenarios, equally if not more plausible than RDI. Its a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. All we really need is a fence-sitting judge, but SD wants a jury.

So, are we trying a mock JBR murder trial? Because, if so, we would probably need another judge besides me, because I am not a fence sitter on this case. Now, if we use a real person...and its another well known case...I can be a fence sitter.

 

[Roy23]

Believe me, I AM!

Dave,

One thing I have is integrity. In my career it is necessary. Both you and Holdon came up with this idea and I certainly did not suggest it. I like following this case and listening to ideas and I have opinions. But both of you were asking for someone to volunteer. I don't have be involved but even as IDI, I see myself as the most open-minded poster in this thread. I wish it wasn't that way but feel free to suggest another. I will be happy to help them. I am not offended at all in case you were wondering.

 

[Ames]

Dave,

One thing I have is integrity. In my career it is necessary. Both you and Holdon came up with this idea and I certainly did not suggest it. I like following this case and listening to ideas and I have opinions. But both of you were asking for someone to volunteer. I don't have be involved but even as IDI, I see myself as the most open-minded poster in this thread. I wish it wasn't that way but feel free to suggest another. I will be happy to help them. I am not offended at all in case you were wondering.

I vote for Roy to be judge...

 

[Roy23]

Also to both Dave and Holdon,

I am not judge or jury yet but let me help you both.

Give a list of posters that you have known over the years that you feel are unbiased and have integrity.

 

[Roy23]

I vote for Roy to be judge...

I never ever would think you would feel that way from reading your posts. please don't take offense to that. I have felt you are the most RDI person on this board no matter what the subject. Maybe I don't read enough. :waitasec:

 

[Roy23]

Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.

I did not see this before. How about Dave making his case to a grand jury to take this thing to trial? I need another IDI to make a case otherwise. Anybody game?

 

[DeeDee249]

I did not see this before. How about Dave making his case to a grand jury to take this thing to trial? I need another IDI to make a case otherwise. Anybody game?

THAT is a great idea!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I did not see this before. How about Dave making his case to a grand jury to take this thing to trial? I need another IDI to make a case otherwise. Anybody game?

I'm likely not going to be involved in any forum mock trial of any named people. I am, however, of the belief that a mock trial of a pseudonym defendant is OK. Any similarity to real persons living or dead is purely... well you know.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

One thing I have is integrity. In my career it is necessary.

You brought it up. But okay.

Both you and Holdon came up with this idea and I certainly did not suggest it. I like following this case and listening to ideas and I have opinions. But both of you were asking for someone to volunteer. I don't have be involved but even as IDI, I see myself as the most open-minded poster in this thread. I wish it wasn't that way but feel free to suggest another. I will be happy to help them. I am not offended at all in case you were wondering.

I was, a little bit. I was kind of joking anyway.

Hmm. Well, all I can say is don't go away yet.

 

[BBB167893]

I never ever would think you would feel that way from reading your posts. please don't take offense to that.

High praise, indeed.

I have felt you are the most RDI person on this board no matter what the subject. Maybe I don't read enough. :waitasec:

It may be simpler than all that, Roy: only Nixon could go to China.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey Roy23.

I'll second your nomination. Heck, you volunteered and not many have applied for the position.
Reading your posting history http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2185333
and you are an excellent candidate.

 

[Roy23]

Hey Roy23.

I'll second your nomination. Heck, you volunteered and not many have applied for the position.
Reading your posting history http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2185333
and you are an excellent candidate.

I certainly appreciate the endorsement. It really doesn't matter to me either way. I think it is important to Dave and Holdon to be right. I still think they care about justice but I think losing is something both would resent. But I respect them both in totally different ways. I think Holdon, being IDI, will eventually be proven right. But I also think I need to see the cards that Dave is holding because it seems that he has dissected this case like none of us have. I see arrogance in both of their posts. That may offend them both but i have respect for them.

If the Ramsey's are innocent, it kills me to think of what the media and even this board has done to them. It would be sickening from some of the posts made here. Our justice system and the media has major problems and will never be perfect, but it is the best. I wish, like in China, we could eliminate serial offenders and not give them the rights that others offord. But I also wish that people with money, like the Ramsey's, pay the ultimate price like we would have to if they are in fact guilty.

And Tadpole, I will not take this job on my own. There has to be as minimum as three people that evaluate this evidence. And you are going to be one of them, if I take the job. They are not interviewing me, they have to choose me because in the end nobody wins or loses. And I don't want the burden on my own. When the case is solved, that will be the ultimate day when winners and losers can gloat or whatever.