Kid Sampson Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 because of the statistics probably. I don't know what the numbers are but its a regular occurence that the people doing the press conference were involved in the crime. You really remember those cases and forget the others because its less shocking when it was not the relatives who were supposed to care for the victim! Yes that's a fair point. There was the Tracie Andrews "road rage" appeal and Karen "we just want you hooommmmeeee" Matthews to name just two off the top of my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 As I have already stated somewhere on here, parents are often coached into behaving in a certain way when making public appeals, so as not to empower the culprit/s further and to try and flush them out. Their behaviour, along with the statements and answers given to questioning, are far more likely to be under scrutiny than a snapshot appeal in front of TV crews and journos, when very few people would not feel totally overwhelmed and out of their depth in the glare of such publicity. No one knows all the facts, which is why I will reserve judgment As for jurors, the may form an opinion based on the demeanour and credibility of the wtinesses and defendant/s. If they reach a verdict solely on that basis alone, without weighing up all the evidence and testimonies then they are not executing their duty properly. but they will definitely be watching it closely! I wasn't in any way suggesting what you have said in bold, I don't know why you have insinuated that I was suggesting jurors ignore the evidence...well actually I know exactly why you added that bit as I am sure everyone else does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 you might think you are doing that. If their behaviour was irrelevant witnesses would not be needed, written statements could be used instead. By the way the witnesses testimony is a fact (not necessarily what they say), the way they are acting is part of that testimony. lawyers would not need to prep witnesses either if you were right. do you think the police were not watching the appeal closely for signs of guilt? I think they probably were. But, also think the have had some training in looking for signs and clues. I said previously we all make judgements, but I'm still with those who prefer to reserve judgement til all the facts are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I think they probably were. But, also think the have had some training in looking for signs and clues. I said previously we all make judgements, but I'm still with those who prefer to reserve judgement til all the facts are available. I am but I am not denying that I have a gut instinct based on their behaviour. I admit it may be wrong but I don't know why people are having a go at anyone for saying that something fishy appeared to be going on. They might be right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Isn't it as bad for us to complain about the guilt of those concerned, because we don't know the details? as to complain about what the police do, when we don't know their motives or procedures inside out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I am but I am not denying that I have a gut instinct based on their behaviour. I admit it may be wrong but I don't know why people are having a go at anyone for saying that something fishy appeared to be going on. They might be right! They might be. Having a gut instinct is natural, I just don't see why some people feel the need to try and convince others that their gut instinct is the right one. It isn't a competition, it's a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 They might be. Having a gut instinct is natural, I just don't see why some people feel the need to try and convince others that their gut instinct is the right one. It isn't a competition, it's a tragedy. I was not doing that. I was just saying that it is ok for people to have an opinion based on the appeal. That doesn't make them part of a lynch mob as was suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It would be a pretty poor forum if nobody expressed an opinion, especially those not of the norm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 You might be doing that. Some of us will be doing what jurors are supposed to do instead, which is to judge on the facts of the case and nothing else. Our trial Judge told us that assessing how the witnesses gave their evidence, eg. their credibility, was a key role of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Sampson Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It would be a pretty poor forum if nobody expressed an opinion, especially those not of the norm... Thats sort of what I was getting at a few posts ago when I questioned why some were getting overly precious about others simply stating an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.