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

**Krruqgwt** · 08-07-2011, 06:14 PM

Daubert standard. LOL, people get convicted in this country all the time for far less, everyone and their mother knows she did it. Would it be a travesty or stretch of the imagination to think that a jury is capable of convicting regardless of the circumstantial evidence? Cases are tried everyday and there isn't always a slam dunk option. I ask you - fancy words aside: what is it with this country that every citizen is a scholar these days? She did it and anyone with half a brain knows she did it. She lied like a politician and skated off like Tonya Harding into the sunset. That little girl got cheated out of a full life and the nutjob that is her mother is free to kill again. Save the rhetoric.

i dont' just fancy myself a scholar with respect to this topic, i am. As a forensic toxicologist who has been qualified as an expert witness, i'm quite familiar with the daubert standard and it's application. if she had been convicted that would have surely been a basis for her appeal.

I simply dont' think we should put someone in prison (or worse, execute them) because we "believe" she killed someone. i support the fact that our judicial system works on evidence not belief.

yes, people get convicted with far less, but should they?

08-07-2011, 06:14 PM	#24
Krruqgwt Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 550 Senior Member	Daubert standard. LOL, people get convicted in this country all the time for far less, everyone and their mother knows she did it. Would it be a travesty or stretch of the imagination to think that a jury is capable of convicting regardless of the circumstantial evidence? Cases are tried everyday and there isn't always a slam dunk option. I ask you - fancy words aside: what is it with this country that every citizen is a scholar these days? She did it and anyone with half a brain knows she did it. She lied like a politician and skated off like Tonya Harding into the sunset. That little girl got cheated out of a full life and the nutjob that is her mother is free to kill again. Save the rhetoric. i dont' just fancy myself a scholar with respect to this topic, i am. As a forensic toxicologist who has been qualified as an expert witness, i'm quite familiar with the daubert standard and it's application. if she had been convicted that would have surely been a basis for her appeal. I simply dont' think we should put someone in prison (or worse, execute them) because we "believe" she killed someone. i support the fact that our judicial system works on evidence not belief. yes, people get convicted with far less, but should they?
	Quote