View Single Post
  #173  
Old 11-22-2014, 10:54 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
On the grounds that we now able to examine evidence without the police leading us down the garden path of their choosing.
That is completely speculative and even if it were true, it would have no legal weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
This is not a case involving finding motives behind why the jury concluded what they concluded and how quickly they did so.
You misunderstood. You said there was insufficient evidence for conviction. That is a claim that is evaluated by a judge, DA, police, and a jury. All of whom upon hearing more evidence than 9 hours of a podcast determined there was. Your opinion in that matter is based on almost nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Juries make mistakes. Legal counsel is sometimes incompetent. Judges often disinterested or over-worked. It's an imperfect system.
Sure, the juries have made mistakes. There is no evidence they did here though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Shining a new light on the evidence ought not include "but the jury thought he was guilty in record time!" as part of that evidence.
It's part of the evidence that undermines your claim that their is not suffient evidence or that there is no evidence of his guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
No single item above means he did it because there is a plausable and reasonable explanation for virtually all of them other than: therefore he did it.
Look up the definition of circumstantial evidence. Again, it's not that those things couldn't happen to you or I, it's that ALL of them happening to someone whose ex was murdered while he was completely uninvolved and unaware is highly, highly unlikely. It would be like winning 40 blackjack hands in a row. The casino would naturally be convinced you were cheating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
There is no trail of evidence based on above.
Sure there is. It's make even more explicit via Jay's testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
That the judge took so little interest in the case while hearing it is more concerning to me than what a jury of amateurs concluded in record time.
So now the judge is bad too? I guess everyone but Adnan is corrupt, lying, out to get him, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
His lawyer seemed less than competent. The cops were busy building a case and had little motivation to include evidence that undermined that case.
How do you I so is lawyer was incompetent? For all we know Adnan could have confessed to her. You listened to less than 9 hours of a show and you think that gives you enough evidence to impune everyone involved in this case from Jenn to the judge? At what point do the mental gymnastics you've performed to conclude Adnan didn't do it because he's a "nice guy" run into the cold reality that you are slandering multiple people with serious accusations?

Last edited by brickbacon; 11-22-2014 at 10:54 AM.