Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an example of a scenario:
A person goes missing for years and his/her body is never found. It was suspected to be a murder case. After going through a list of potential suspects, all of them had good alibis and neither shows connection to the disappearance.
Then finally after years later, there is one primary suspect left and he's rude during the whole interrogation and displays indifference about the victim. He never answers with a clear yes or no and when pressed harder whether he did it or not, he declines to answer more and requests for an lawyer. There is still no sufficient evidence, no body and no confession but the detective (in his/her gut instinct) truly believes they have the culprit right there in their hands.
As he's being led out, he's walks away with a grin/smile as if saying ''I got away with it idiots''.
In a case like this, even without any real incriminating evidence, no body and no confession at all if a detective has a hunch feeling it's him (but just can't prove it) can the suspect still be tried and brought to justice?
This is an example of a scenario:
A person goes missing for years and his/her body is never found. It was suspected to be a murder case. After going through a list of potential suspects, all of them had good alibis and neither shows connection to the disappearance.
Then finally after years later, there is one primary suspect left and he's rude during the whole interrogation and displays indifference about the victim. He never answers with a clear yes or no and when pressed harder whether he did it or not, he declines to answer more and requests for an lawyer. There is still no sufficient evidence, no body and no confession but the detective (in his/her gut instinct) truly believes they have the culprit right there in their hands.
As he's being led out, he's walks away with a grin/smile as if saying ''I got away with it idiots''.
In a case like this, even without any real incriminating evidence, no body and no confession at all if a detective has a hunch feeling it's him (but just can't prove it) can the suspect still be tried and brought to justice?
You can't be convicted on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
The threshold in criminal cases is 99% certainty or beyind any reasonable doubt and this threshold could not be met without substantial evidence.
In civil cases, the threshold is lower at 51% and is based on the blance of probabilities rather than beyond any reasonable doubt.
Tell that to the innocent folks who served jail time behind eye witness testimony.
In most countries the Judge has to offer some guidance to the Jury in relation to eye witness accounts and eyewitnesses are subject to cross examination.
R v Turnbull 1977 laid down the Turnbull Guidelines in relation to the law in England & Wales however similar guidelines are evident in many parts of the US.
Tell that to the innocent folks who served jail time behind eye witness testimony.
Sadly, the jury considered that eyewitness testimony sufficient "evidence." My nephew has a buddy who was sent to prison for 18 months on a series of lies from two people who had a prior axe to grind with him, and the charge was something juries like to believe without much more than "eyewitness" testimony. He's spent the last 3 years working on clearing his name.
Welcome to one of the top reasons people like me, No-Recess et al hold so much distrust in the State. They gave themselves this unlimited power over life, death, freedom, etc and they sold everyone on the concept that if they tell you due process was done, then it was, now shut yer yap and off to the pokey with you!
This is an example of a scenario:
A person goes missing for years and his/her body is never found. It was suspected to be a murder case. After going through a list of potential suspects, all of them had good alibis and neither shows connection to the disappearance.
Then finally after years later, there is one primary suspect left and he's rude during the whole interrogation and displays indifference about the victim. He never answers with a clear yes or no and when pressed harder whether he did it or not, he declines to answer more and requests for an lawyer. There is still no sufficient evidence, no body and no confession but the detective (in his/her gut instinct) truly believes they have the culprit right there in their hands.
As he's being led out, he's walks away with a grin/smile as if saying ''I got away with it idiots''.
In a case like this, even without any real incriminating evidence, no body and no confession at all if a detective has a hunch feeling it's him (but just can't prove it) can the suspect still be tried and brought to justice?
Op the DA would need to look at the case and decide to file. After doing that a DA will never back down or admit mistakes. They will lie and withhold evidence proving someone is innocent.
Murder cases are huge for a DA. They will do anything to convict and anything to keep a proven innocent person in prison if they convicted them.
Illinois shut it's death row down because of these things.
This is an example of a scenario:
A person goes missing for years and his/her body is never found. It was suspected to be a murder case. After going through a list of potential suspects, all of them had good alibis and neither shows connection to the disappearance.
Then finally after years later, there is one primary suspect left and he's rude during the whole interrogation and displays indifference about the victim. He never answers with a clear yes or no and when pressed harder whether he did it or not, he declines to answer more and requests for a lawyer. There is still no sufficient evidence, no body and no confession but the detective (in his/her gut instinct) truly believes they have the culprit right there in their hands.
As he's being led out, he's walks away with a grin/smile as if saying ''I got away with it idiots''.
In a case like this, even without any real incriminating evidence, no body and no confession at all if a detective has a hunch feeling it's him (but just can't prove it) can the suspect still be tried and brought to justice?
It happens all the time. If a person isn't arrested and just "detained" all rights are ignored. Illegal search can proceed as if there were never any rights.
The new MO of "interpreting" laws is out of control. One guy recently won a $1.8M suit for just such an illegal cavity and body search. He was forced to defecate twice in front of officers after being administered diuretics (illegally) was forced to have a colonoscopy and then was sent the bill for $8,000.
Where was his lawyer? He was never arrested, just detained, so there was no lawyer.
What was the reason the police tortured this guy? They pulled him over for running a stop sign. The cops didn't like the way he was standing and decided he had drugs up his arse!
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison999
Once the DA files charges it's on.
Op the DA would need to look at the case and decide to file. After doing that a DA will never back down or admit mistakes. They will lie and withhold evidence proving someone is innocent.
Murder cases are huge for a DA. They will do anything to convict and anything to keep a proven innocent person in prison if they convicted them.
Illinois shut it's death row down because of these things.
This type of behavior, of manipulating the law, of putting their hands on the scales, is a widespread problem - especially on the low and middle class who cannot afford proper representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
Tell that to the innocent folks who served jail time behind eye witness testimony.
In some cases, the actual eyewitnesses are the actual criminals. How many times have we witnessed people pretending to be the victim when they are the actual perp?
Last edited by Originalist; 01-16-2019 at 04:49 PM..
In a case like this, even without any real incriminating evidence, no body and no confession at all if a detective has a hunch feeling it's him (but just can't prove it) can the suspect still be tried and brought to justice?
Maybe yes, maybe no. First the police have to convince the prosecutor to file charges, which he/she won't do if they think it will be tossed out. Then in the pre-trial hearing the prosecutor must show to the court there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, if not it will be tossed out. Then during the trial, the prosecutor must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy did it.
There are a lot of steps, and each one can result in the case tossed out. But each step is a judgement call by a human, and there is a lot of latitude for making that call. And of course the jury is an unknown. But if all those things do work out, yes, people can be convicted on flimsy evidence and it happens all the time.
Personally I think the law should not be based on "gut feelings". Too much room for error and for unscrupulous police/prosecutors/judges. People are released all the time from prison for being railroaded on flimsy evidence and overzealous police.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
