DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**2puO4Rhf** · 12-05-2009, 05:24 PM

V My main contention here has, as stated in my first post, has to do with the particular standards of evidence required in a criminal trial: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ – that is a heavy burdon that the prosecution failed to meet.

There was no physical evidence that linked Amanda to the crime scene, she was found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence. "Psychosomatic observations" and/or "investigators instinctints" as they were stated be applied in the trial are valid, but not conclusive.

What was that line from the O.J. trial: “if the glove does not fit – you must acquit”.

She may be guilty, but from what little I know about jurisprudence there was no legal basis for the final verdict.

Pardon me, got to go now. Arsenal vs. Stoke City on right now: great game.

Cheers Mate!

12-05-2009, 05:24 PM	#9
2puO4Rhf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 424 Senior Member	V My main contention here has, as stated in my first post, has to do with the particular standards of evidence required in a criminal trial: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ – that is a heavy burdon that the prosecution failed to meet. There was no physical evidence that linked Amanda to the crime scene, she was found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence. "Psychosomatic observations" and/or "investigators instinctints" as they were stated be applied in the trial are valid, but not conclusive. What was that line from the O.J. trial: “if the glove does not fit – you must acquit”. She may be guilty, but from what little I know about jurisprudence there was no legal basis for the final verdict. Pardon me, got to go now. Arsenal vs. Stoke City on right now: great game. Cheers Mate!
	Quote