Recent content by lin

Thanks for the research. ITA -- this is more of the defense trying desperately to find some straw to latch on to -- and failing miserably. This is going nowhere, imo. If they had anything else to work with, they'd drop this issue themselves but as it is, well, what else have they got? Nada...

I'm so glad you're getting clarification cos I don't want to have to look it up! But if none is forthcoming, I'll do a search later tonight or in the a.m.

Sorry I wasn't more clear -- I meant the behavioral evidence as opposed to just circumstantial evidence in general. I predict the behavioral evidence will be admitted and used at trial over the strong objections of the defense.

And that, boys and girls, is the best explanation on some of the problems with the current defense experts that you're likely to ever read! (And Dr. Lee's admonishment during the Specter trial wasn't even needed to make the excellent points very clear!)

Thanks but nah, Muzikman rocks, I just roll. ;)

lol, clearly, ITA. The reason those cases of wrongful convictions make such headlines is because of their rarity. Were it a common event, they wouldn't garner such attention, imo. I don't have any stats to back this up but common sense leads me to believe that more people are convicted of...

I'd vote to convict the media on that one in this case!

rofl, gmta! I've been saying that all day! The defense may be able to explain some of the evidence away if taken individually but it's my firm opinion there is no possible cohesive defense theory that could overcome all of the evidence. The defense can't credibly argue SODDI or my personal...

Yes, before rendering a binding verdict that may deprive someone of their liberty or even their life, the jury must consider the testimony of the experts from both sides. However, for the purposes of discussion, those of us not in a position to affect someone else's liberty are free to draw...

That's not quite accurate: If the jury is presented with evidence from which they may make a reasonable inference that Caylee was buried, they are free to do so and use that as a fact in considering their verdict. They are the finders of fact, after all.

However, all juries make reasonable inferences based upon the evidence presented to come to their verdicts.

Just so there is no confusion: This must be a personal standard because it is certainly not a legal requirement that 'at least one item of highly reliable inculpatory evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC committed a premeditated murder. Instead, as has been discussed at length...

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: Simply brilliant! Thanks

That question cannot be answered in a pithy post or concise summary. It is the cumulation of all of the evidence upon which the prosecution relies to prove their case, not any one or any three or four bits of evidence. Most convictions do not include a confession, eyewitness(es) or "smoking...