Guilty Verdict in Sierra Lamar Murder Case-But we don't know if she's actually dead?!? (Montclair: law school, law)

[18Montclair]

This fact just irks me with respect to this case.

Im not a fan of the defendant in any way, and the prosecution had dna evidence but without her body, to me it's all circumstantial.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This fact just irks me with respect to this case.

Im not a fan of the defendant in any way, and the prosecution had dna evidence but without her body, to me it's all circumstantial.

Well if she's not dead, then the defendant could have sang, and cleared it all up. No singing, too bad.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Well if she's not dead, then the defendant could have sang, and cleared it all up. No singing, too bad.

Or he doesnt actually know because he's not involved in her disappearance. Idk.

[CaliRestoration]

Are you kidding?

They found her hair, confirmed by DNA test, on rope found in his car. They also found his DNA on her clothes on the side of the road. He raped her, he killed her, and he hid the body well.

The only way people could be irked by this verdict is if they are willing to turn off their brains and suspend all logic.

[Tallysmom]

Wouldn't surprise me at all that he ponies up the location to avoid the needle.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

He raped her, he killed her, and he hid the body well.

So he was convicted because this is probably true?

Im not saying he's innocent, but his defense team wasnt very good imo.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This fact just irks me with respect to this case.

Im not a fan of the defendant in any way, and the prosecution had dna evidence but without her body, to me it's all circumstantial.

So, the parents should never get justice because the defendant knows how to hide bodies?

First off, you and I weren't in the courtroom. And circumstancial evidence is still evidence. They can't make stuff up and pass it off. We've been told about the rope, and the clothing in the field...what other evidence was presented? I don't know. Do you? But evidently there was a lot of it, including creepy behavior towards a number of other women.

I am happy about the it one, and I don't think they got the wrong guy. That and other people have been convicted of murder without a body....

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

So, the parents should never get justice because the defendant knows how to hide bodies?

Obviously the parents deserve justice, but we technically do NOT know for sure that's she's actually dead.

Like I said, he's probably guilty but none of us really know beyond a shadow of a doubt since the victim might actually have just run away from home.

Were I on that jury, I dont think I could have gotten past that.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So he was convicted because this is probably true?

It is true beyond "reasonable doubt" which is the strictest standard of evidence in US Courts for criminal trials.

Her hair on rope in HIS car, his DNA on her clothes prevents there being any reasonable doubt that he was not only her captor, but also murderer.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Obviously the parents deserve justice, but we technically do NOT know for sure that's she's actually dead.

Like I said, he's probably guilty but none of us really know beyond a shadow of a doubt since the victim might actually have just run away from home.

Were I on that jury, I dont think I could have gotten past that.

1)As someone said below, the standard is not "Shadow of a doubt," the standard is "Reasonable doubt."

2)On standards, consider the table below:

-------------------------------Jury Acquits--------------------Jury Convicts
Person is Innocent....................A..................... ...................B
Person is Guilty........................C................... .....................D

What we'd love is to always have the result be in either cell A (Innocent person Acquitted) or cell D (Guilty person Convicted). Unfortunately, the more stringent you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell C (Guilty person Acquitted) happening. The looser you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell B (Innocent person Convicted) happening.

We see this in 18Montclair's call for "Shadow of a Doubt" standard. By that standard the defendant would have more likely been acquitted. Given the evidence, that raises the chance the case would fall into cell C.

The table above is used in law schools, criminal justice programs, and statistics classes to show that there's an unavoidable trade-off. It is impossible to assure all cases fall only into cells A and D. So, when we set the standard, we are really deciding which we worry about more: do we worry more about mistakenly freeing a guilty person (that is, do we want to minimize cell C)? If so, we set the standard low, and convict lots more people. Or, do we worry more about mistakenly convicted an innocent person (that is, do we want to minimize cell B)? If so, we set the standard high, and convict fewer people. Unless we just acquit everyone, or convict everyone, there's likely going to be cases in cell C and/or B.

I'm glad the only possibilities in this case are cells B and (more likely) D.