Yep, Neil get his own thread :> He's as close to man love as I'll ever get.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has an update about jury duty
-
bannination
- Captain
- Posts: 5592
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:58 am
- Location: Hendersonville
- Contact:
Neil deGrasse Tyson has an update about jury duty
Yep, Neil get his own thread :> He's as close to man love as I'll ever get.
-
O Really
- Admiral
- Posts: 23172
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm
Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson has an update about jury duty
Eyewitnesses are indeed highly unreliable, for a variety of reasons. But let's talk about Sandusky, since you brought his case up. (Disclaimer: I'm not defending Sandusky or saying that he's not a sleazy scumbag who deserved what he got)
Sandusky was convicted with the first person testimony of several victims, not just McQueary's testimony. Suppose McQuearly's testimony was all you had. No other evidence of any sort. McQueary's testimony for the preliminary perjury trial says that he heard 'two or three' slapping sounds before entering the locker room, and later saw Sandusky with his arms around the child's waist while hearing 'more than one' of the showerheads running and saw that the child's hair 'was wet'; although he did not see any sexual contact of hands or genitals or any evidence of arousal, just from the positions of the bodies he knew it was 'over the line' and 'extremely sexual' and 'some sort of intercourse' was taking place, and that he tried to explain what he had seen to Coach Paterno by using the word 'fondling'. If you were the defense, and there were no other supporting evidence, do you think you'd be able to raise a reasonable doubt among the jury? At least enough to keep your client from being convicted of rape? Betcha could.
Sandusky was convicted with the first person testimony of several victims, not just McQueary's testimony. Suppose McQuearly's testimony was all you had. No other evidence of any sort. McQueary's testimony for the preliminary perjury trial says that he heard 'two or three' slapping sounds before entering the locker room, and later saw Sandusky with his arms around the child's waist while hearing 'more than one' of the showerheads running and saw that the child's hair 'was wet'; although he did not see any sexual contact of hands or genitals or any evidence of arousal, just from the positions of the bodies he knew it was 'over the line' and 'extremely sexual' and 'some sort of intercourse' was taking place, and that he tried to explain what he had seen to Coach Paterno by using the word 'fondling'. If you were the defense, and there were no other supporting evidence, do you think you'd be able to raise a reasonable doubt among the jury? At least enough to keep your client from being convicted of rape? Betcha could.
-
O Really
- Admiral
- Posts: 23172
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm
Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson has an update about jury duty
IMNVHO, I'd be willing to accept credible eyewitness testimony to convict somebody of, for example, simple assault, reckless driving, pissing in the park, etc., but never for anything serious - absent some additional supporting evidence. Problem being, if you have more than one eyewitness, you are almost guaranteed to have differing testimony. The MTA train that ran into the guy who got tossed on to the track? That was one of our clients. The stories of those who supposedly "saw" the whole thing make you wonder if they were all in the same city. So if you have only one eyewitness, you can't give him/her much credibility,.