Who killed Laci?

I didn't say I couldn't do it - you did. I disagree. I was simply trying to be honest, by saying I, like most normal people would have a bias. Some of us can suspend their bias (in which case, we'd make just as good a juror as anyone), and some of us would deny we even have any.

You take that statement as an indictment of you, because the shoe fits.

There are so many cases of people being wrongly convicted that I don't see how anyone could deny that juries allow themselves to be swayed by many factors other than the lawful facts. The last jury I served on there was one man who based his decision on personal criteria that had nothing to do with the facts that were presented. He only voted with the rest of us after he realized we were willing to meet for as many days as necessary to avoid a hung jury. Were we wrong to use this tactic? Certainly he was wrong to vote against his own judgement without ever being convinced he was in error.

And believe it or not, that was my only point - that it happens, and that human beings are susceptible to it. and oh yes - that it is just a little disingenuous (or dishonest) to propose to not even understand that.

Nope. These were your words:

In order not to understand the reasoning for change of venue, one would have to consider themselves exempt from human frailties like bias. To answer your question, I would have a bias as to his guilt/innocence, but whether I could serve or not would depend on whether the attorneys spotted the bias during jury interview.
__________________________________________

I said I don't understand why change of venue is so often deemed necessary. I say this because I believe reasonabe people can have hearsay information, and still serve on a jury.

You said anyone believing that (me), would have to consider themselves exempt from human frailties, such as bias.

That was an indictment of me.

Sofia, in order for me to concede that you're right, I have to agree I care more about smearing you than about stating my point.

I don't.

If you can't take my word for that, I'm afraid I have to let that be your problem.

The cause of death has not been determined and the basis for the amputation of skull and legs as not been described. Thus, we might have to state at this point, that there is no evidence that Laci was murdered.

Did she commit suicide ?

Yeah; then she cut herself up.

anyone interested in a trial and conviction before he gets hung?

snood--

That may be the bone of our contention.

I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind. You think change of venue is necessary-- I think it shouldn't be. No reason to get bogged down in insulting rhetoric.

The guy edgarblythe spoke of is a good point. I've not served on a jury, but the jury edgar was on discussed their reasons for their votes, as they must do. It seems the guy who made a personal opinion, and couldn't explain it, finally had his back put against the wall. Since he couldn't explain his reasoning, he went with the majority. It seems like the jury did their job. People on juries ultimately must explain their reasoning, based on the evidence presented at the trial. They can't say, "Well, the National Enquirer said...."

Nothing but the evidence presented should be considered. I just think this is easier than some of the people on this thread seem to think.

New Haven-- I agree that we don't have hard evidence to say she was murdered. I think the head and legs fell off due to decomposition. But, when they find the legs weighted down, then we will have proof of murder. (Unless the forensics prove the head was sawed off, which is proof of murder.) My comments about Laci's death are pure speculation.

I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind. You think change of venue is necessary-- I think it shouldn't be. No reason to get bogged down in insulting rhetoric.


Since you hold accuracy in quoting exactly what was said, and just for the record.

You said you didn't understand the phenomena of change of venue.

I said it's dishonest to say you don't understand it.

New Haven wrote:

This is incorrect, the coroner has determined that she died at the hand of another.

The WAY she died is unknown, at least to the public.

The fact that the police received a wire tap approval leads one to surmise that they have some extremely damning circumstantial evidence.

dys: Remember it isn't innocent until proven guilty, it is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.

max<

Your reminder of presumption of innocence is a point well taken.

It is one which everyone should remember when considering any case that is winding its way through our legal system.

Mark Geragos, lawyer of noteriety (Winona the klepto, among others), has stepped in to defend Scott.

This will be an almost OJ redux. I'm interested to hear the evidence. Wonder if he'll pull a Johnnie Cochran and refute the gathering of evidence...

Meanwhile, only in America-- Scott is recieving a deluge of love letters...

Sofia<

You are correct, "only in America."

Hmmm.....

I wonder if any of those letters are from an agnostic I know....

Scott IS cute, isn't he girls?

At the hand of another?

Not true! The evidence demonstrates only that she died , was found in the water and was missing her head and legs. The latter easily could have been the consequence of the forces of water on the body.

Not forensic evidence exists.

Scott cute? You're kidding, right?

Yes, I was.

And you are still wrong, the forensic evidence does exist that proves she died at the hand of another.

And we will hear it at the trial.

I'll bet you your(!) avatar we do.

Why do we have to wait?

Because we aren't on the Modesto Police force.

And I figured you'd want to hang on to your(!) avatar as long as you could.