Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • First, presuming guilt is way wrong here. While there is a preponderous of circumstantial evidence that isn't quite enought to say outright he is guilty. Heck, where's the physical evidence?

    It's bad enough when the media forgets the idea that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why have a judicial system? Why not skip the middle man and let the police shoot down where they stand. Obviously if they are wanted by the police the individual is guilty. Beside if you truly are innocent why are the pol
    • First, presuming guilt is way wrong here.

      For someone on the jury, for the judge, for the law, yes. For anyone else ... eh. Freedom of presumption is in the Constitution, I think. Or something.
      • True, but if one gets in the habit thinking someone's guilty before you know more of the facts wouldn't that make one less effective of a juror in general?

        Odds are that if one did become a juror you wouldn't know about the case to begin with since not every crime is spread across every media outlet.

        I guess I view it as sort of a prejudice in thinking. No real harm in forming a presumption as an individual but how many cases are tried in the media with what happens in the court room almost an afterthought?
        • Murder in suburbia is simple, because the motivations are simple: sex and money, and he's got both as potential motives. Couple that with his other actions and lies (including lies told in his Diane Sawyer interview), and it becomes abundantly clear to me that this guy is guilty.

          I've also seen many real murder cases documented on television after the fact. With rare exception, it is always the spouse.

          Having seen several interviews with jurors, I can tell you that circumstantial evidence weighs much heavier than lawyers would have you think. In the Binyon trial, several jurors said the most compelling piece of evidence was the behavior of Mrs. Binyon the day after her husband's death.

          I can tell you honestly that I actually did hold my opinion on Ricci, but kidnappings are a different pathology altogether, so it's much harder for me to rely on "gut instinct", and therefore I hold my opinion on all kidnappings.

          At the end of the day, though, cases like this are fluff compared to some of the nasty, rancid, horrible shit that I've heard about from murder cases from inner cities. When I was much younger, I happened to read the court transcript (provided by a neighbor, long after the fact) from a woman who had been kidnapped, raped and tortured by some random guy. I hope I never end up a juror in a case like that.