Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial
Details in the http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/258876/victim-testifies-to-sexual… ]Concord Monitor Monitor reporter Maddie Hanna is also tweeting from the trial http://twitter.com/#!/maddiehanna ]here WMUR-TV is providing live updates http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Trial_Of_Ernest_Willis_Continues ]here UPDATE (1:30 EDT)- Chuck Phelps is taking the stand. Live updates at the links above. 2:50 PM EDT- Video footage from WMUR http://youtu.be/RJrebgIKGZI ]here
- 451 views
Erik,
The only discussion here about consent revolved around whether Tina might bear any responsibility for her own actions in the case. No one has argued anywhere on SI (to my knowledge) that Tina’s possible consent had anything to do with Willis’ guilt for his own actions, even if Tina had thrown herself at him.
The only discussion here about consent revolved around whether Tina might bear any responsibility for her own actions in the case. No one has argued anywhere on SI (to my knowledge) that Tina’s possible consent had anything to do with Willis’ guilt for his own actions, even if Tina had thrown herself at him.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
We removed some posts from this thread for review, and cannot repost them at this time, as they contained information and accusations whose accuracy we could not verify. It appears that the information was obtained from private messages, and we have a policy against http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] “without permission, posting correspondence that was intended to be private” . The matter is still under review, but that is where we are now.
The user who posted the information was contacted and understands our decision.
Thanks.
End moderator note.
The user who posted the information was contacted and understands our decision.
Thanks.
End moderator note.
The posts that were removed in this thread were mine. The moderators and I have had some lengthy discussions over the matter in private the last couple of days. I appreciate their spirit in the matter and their reaching out to me to debate the issue with me.
The conversation that I linked to at another blog site cannot be serifed as happening as it took place in private. Neither individual has a it posted on their facebook wall. I have checked both places. The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of the conversation that I linked to, it has been edited in some manner as the photos are blurred and the conversation has been cut up into small segments with commentary in between. So with that in mind—the conversation being private and clear editing, it could create a reasonable doubt as the the veracity of it. I am inclined to believe it, but cannot prove it. So I support the MODS decision to remove it.
And in fact, after learning that I could not prove it, I asked them to drop my appeal to have the comments reposted. At the point I asked for them to not be reposted, there was still discussion about putting them back up.
The moderators have certainly allowed me to make a number of very critical comments about this situation. My repeated critical comments citing Timothy and the biblical requirements for a pastor have remained as they apply to Phelps as well as a number of other critical comments.
It is my hope that if someone posted a conversation that I supposedly had but could not be verified that they would afford me the same courtesy as they have this other person.
I am sure that when available they will permit a link to the full trial testimony in the Willis case.
As much as it pains me to say it, they were right to moderate my comments since I was not able to verify beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of what I posted.
The conversation that I linked to at another blog site cannot be serifed as happening as it took place in private. Neither individual has a it posted on their facebook wall. I have checked both places. The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of the conversation that I linked to, it has been edited in some manner as the photos are blurred and the conversation has been cut up into small segments with commentary in between. So with that in mind—the conversation being private and clear editing, it could create a reasonable doubt as the the veracity of it. I am inclined to believe it, but cannot prove it. So I support the MODS decision to remove it.
And in fact, after learning that I could not prove it, I asked them to drop my appeal to have the comments reposted. At the point I asked for them to not be reposted, there was still discussion about putting them back up.
The moderators have certainly allowed me to make a number of very critical comments about this situation. My repeated critical comments citing Timothy and the biblical requirements for a pastor have remained as they apply to Phelps as well as a number of other critical comments.
It is my hope that if someone posted a conversation that I supposedly had but could not be verified that they would afford me the same courtesy as they have this other person.
I am sure that when available they will permit a link to the full trial testimony in the Willis case.
As much as it pains me to say it, they were right to moderate my comments since I was not able to verify beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of what I posted.
[Leah Hayes] The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?
Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).
As well, if you are suggesting that a jury’s decision (or a judge’s) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.
[Alex Guggenheim]Alex, if you wish to stand in support of Ernie Willis, go for it. That speaks volumes about the kind of man you are. Let the words of your own mouth testify as to your character and judgment.[Leah Hayes] The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?
Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).
As well, if you are suggesting that a jury’s decision (or a judge’s) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.
It is clear beyond doubt that a man who was in a position of power and trust over a 15 year old girl had sex with her twice. Ernie’s own testimony on the stand said that he began making sexual comments to Tina. Those comments were a clear effort to groom the victim for his sexual use and pleasure. He pleaded to one count because he could not deny they DNA of the child. His story kept changing. Tina’s did not. Ernie is no OJ Simpson.
Under what circumstances Alex do you excuse a married main having sex with a child? From Ernie’s own testimony he testified that he viewed Tina as a kid at the time and took her out for her 16th birthday because that is a big deal to a kid. He did not view himself as having an affair with a consenting adult. He by his own testimony was having “sexual intercourse” with a “kid”.
Many of you men need to sit down and think about the kind of pastors, deacons and elders you have watching over your families. If God forbid you were to die, would these men protect your daughters? Would they? Or would they side with the men who used your daughter or son or wife for their own sexual gratification and then dispensed with them when they were done?
[Alex Guggenheim][Leah Hayes] The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?
Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).
As well, if you are suggesting that a jury’s decision (or a judge’s) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.
Alex,
I’m sorry, but that’s just the craziest thing I’ve ever heard on this subject. Willis was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment] indicted - formally accused of criminal activity - on four charges. They were:
* 1st count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 2nd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 3rd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 4th count - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-3.htm felonious sexual assualt
Willis was found guilty of all four charges.
You can disagree with Leah, or me, or believe what Phelps has said - that’s your right. However, to try and split the hairs between ‘legal’ and ‘factual’ is to seek for a third option that simply doesn’t exist anymore. Tina’s claim had enough evidence behind it to put Willis away for what should be the rest of his life, and that’s a fact.
As for OJ - there was a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, so he walked. I don’t like that either, but that’s the way the law works in our country.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
John 10:12-13 ESV He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
I am so grateful that the fate of my soul, Tina’s soul, your soul and that of all mankind do not rest with the hirling. The rest in Jesus the Good Shepherd. Tina clearly had hirlings to flee when the wolves came for her. Jesus did not flee and did not forget her cause. We know and serve the living God who is able to see—the God who is able to hear—the God who is able to act.
Not everyone who suffers abuse on this earth will see justice like Tina did. There are many who will read this who time for earthly justice is beyond the statute of limitations, or your perp is dead, or you don’t even know who they are. The Good Shepherd has not forgot you or your pain. If possible pursue legal means here on this earth. Our hope does not end with or is limited to the justice system.
Rev 21:4-9 ESV He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
Dear one Jesus is coming. Not only is He coming, but He is coming with a specific purpose to wipe away your tears. He is coming for justice and that justice includes your tears, your hurts, and all your pain and suffering. Behold, those who have accepted Jesus are His bride. Jesus is not one to let messing with His bride to go on without a direct response from Him. Men on earth will fail you, the Man Jesus, He is not like other men. He is and there is no one like Him. He is coming dear one—coming for you—coming specifically to take care of your tears.
I am so grateful that the fate of my soul, Tina’s soul, your soul and that of all mankind do not rest with the hirling. The rest in Jesus the Good Shepherd. Tina clearly had hirlings to flee when the wolves came for her. Jesus did not flee and did not forget her cause. We know and serve the living God who is able to see—the God who is able to hear—the God who is able to act.
Not everyone who suffers abuse on this earth will see justice like Tina did. There are many who will read this who time for earthly justice is beyond the statute of limitations, or your perp is dead, or you don’t even know who they are. The Good Shepherd has not forgot you or your pain. If possible pursue legal means here on this earth. Our hope does not end with or is limited to the justice system.
Rev 21:4-9 ESV He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
Dear one Jesus is coming. Not only is He coming, but He is coming with a specific purpose to wipe away your tears. He is coming for justice and that justice includes your tears, your hurts, and all your pain and suffering. Behold, those who have accepted Jesus are His bride. Jesus is not one to let messing with His bride to go on without a direct response from Him. Men on earth will fail you, the Man Jesus, He is not like other men. He is and there is no one like Him. He is coming dear one—coming for you—coming specifically to take care of your tears.
[Jay C.] Alex,
I’m sorry, but that’s just the craziest thing I’ve ever heard on this subject. Willis was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment] indicted - formally accused of criminal activity - on four charges. They were:
* 1st count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 2nd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 3rd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 4th count - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-3.htm felonious sexual assualt
Willis was found guilty of all four charges.
You can disagree with Leah, or me, or believe what Phelps has said - that’s your right. However, to try and split the hairs between ‘legal’ and ‘factual’ is to seek for a third option that simply doesn’t exist anymore. Tina’s claim had enough evidence behind it to put Willis away for what should be the rest of his life, and that’s a fact.
As for OJ - there was a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, so he walked. I don’t like that either, but that’s the way the law works in our country.
DITTO DITTO DITTO DITTO DITTO That post Jay is worth repeating!
[Alex Guggenheim]This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.[Leah Hayes] The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?
Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).
As well, if you are suggesting that a jury’s decision (or a judge’s) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.
A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ’s means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.
A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.
It behooves us to remember that all children - even teens older than consent laws require - need to be protected by their parents and by their spiritual leaders. Sometimes teens are preyed upon, as in this case. Sometimes they need to be protected from themselves. A mature body does not mean a mature mind. Even if a teen is an instigator of sin, an adult can not use that as an excuse for corrupt actions. In a culture seeking to devour our children, let us - the body of Christ - protect and “suffer” them to come to the Saviour.
L Strickler
Leah, (and whomever else appears to have issues),
Apparently the context of legal decisions vs that which is fact to synonymous to you. Understand, a legal decision can be either factually correct or factually incorrect. It is simply a legal decision. And I am not arguing that this case and its legal findings are not fact, I am arguing your (Leah’s) incorrect assumption that a jury’s rendering ,which is a legal truth, should be viewed as a default factual truth. They are not one in the same. They may be, often they are and in this case they may be but I am not arguing one way or the other specifically about the case. I am only pointing out the erroneous posture of your (Leah’s) statement which reflects the view that a jury’s finding should be viewed as synonymous with fact. And this simply is not an absolute to which one may hold.
Legal renderings hope to be factual but by virtue of their being a legal rendering does not assume it to be doubtlessly factual. It simply is binding by law. Again, it could be and in this case may be but your (Leah’s) statement reflects an assumption that is based on a fallacious parallel. Legal renderings are not necessarily factual renderings though they hope to be based in fact. And again, how loudly and clearly I can say this, I do not know, but this is my point and my only point which is, again, that your statement which I quoted appears to contain (I still did not get an answer to my question so I cannot say for certain in spite of your lengthy post and those of your advocates…imagine that) this assumption and this is a dangerous one to use in the absolute manner reflected by your statement.
If you respond again with assumptions about my views of the case which I have not revealed then I will simply have to ignore you all together and will just bow out of the topic since the case and the issue is not what sparked my interest, rather the absolute statement you made which is often quite injuriously in our society today. However, if you can answer my question then maybe we can have a bit more dialogue and if you are interested in my opinion about the case and ask what it might be then maybe we can talk even beyond that. But I do not have a great deal to say about the case, again because it simply is not that provocative for me, personally.
Now let me illustrate my point about facts and legal adjudications. Now and then we read about a man or woman found guilty of murder when in fact he or she did not murder anyone. We all know of these cases. But the preponderance of the evidence convinced the jury that this person is guilty.
He or she is guilty, legally, but simply because there is a legal rendering does not allow us to assume this is, in fact, true merely by the legal rendering itself (and that is how your [Leah’s] statement was constructed). We certainly respect the finding of the jury (or judge) and of course it is binding and our course with that person is with this legal determination as overriding until more discovery can be made but still, the one does not equal the other. And like the person found guilty of murder but in fact did not murder anyone and later (after more discovery and the introduction of facts) this person is absolved of the crime, while he or she had been adjudicated guilty, the fact was he or she never murdered anyone. The legal rendering of guilty of murder and the fact that they really did not murder anyone were not the same. So it is not always the case therfore your (Leah’s) statement which reflects this kind of absolutism, is fallacious (again if this is what you are alluding to).
Now the best you one may state is “he or she is guilty and this is the truth as the facts exists”, but no such statement was made. And I have found that people that do not want to properly qualify their strong statements often refuse to do so because they are controlled by their own biases and what they want to be true without any interruption to their beliefs while protesting the biases of others. I certainly hope this is not the case.
****AGAIN, none of this is a reflection of my personal opinion of the case or whether the facts line up with the jury’s verdict. I haven’t said a word about that and have not revealed a single bit about that to anyone so any responses by anyone toward me thinking that they are warranted to address me on the issue as if I have revealed this are incorrect and operating on assumptions, assumptions of which they have no business making.
Thank you and enjoy your flight. :)
Apparently the context of legal decisions vs that which is fact to synonymous to you. Understand, a legal decision can be either factually correct or factually incorrect. It is simply a legal decision. And I am not arguing that this case and its legal findings are not fact, I am arguing your (Leah’s) incorrect assumption that a jury’s rendering ,which is a legal truth, should be viewed as a default factual truth. They are not one in the same. They may be, often they are and in this case they may be but I am not arguing one way or the other specifically about the case. I am only pointing out the erroneous posture of your (Leah’s) statement which reflects the view that a jury’s finding should be viewed as synonymous with fact. And this simply is not an absolute to which one may hold.
Legal renderings hope to be factual but by virtue of their being a legal rendering does not assume it to be doubtlessly factual. It simply is binding by law. Again, it could be and in this case may be but your (Leah’s) statement reflects an assumption that is based on a fallacious parallel. Legal renderings are not necessarily factual renderings though they hope to be based in fact. And again, how loudly and clearly I can say this, I do not know, but this is my point and my only point which is, again, that your statement which I quoted appears to contain (I still did not get an answer to my question so I cannot say for certain in spite of your lengthy post and those of your advocates…imagine that) this assumption and this is a dangerous one to use in the absolute manner reflected by your statement.
[Leah Hayes] The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted—AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH— was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.However, for others this does illustrate exactly the kinds of problems that exist in communicating. Here I am addressing the use of terms and context which reflect nothing about supporting anyone or revealing my personal opinion about the case and what do I get? I get a response(s) that ignores my post and projects onto my words a completely different meaning with multiple assumptions. This is a sign of a problem and that problem does not lie with the questions I asked or observations I made, rather with the one demonstrating the inability or refusal to listen to others and respond to their words instead of being led about by non sequiturs (in noting this it is a risk to respond knowing what I already know from the first response but I believe the best so I am giving it another shot)..
If you respond again with assumptions about my views of the case which I have not revealed then I will simply have to ignore you all together and will just bow out of the topic since the case and the issue is not what sparked my interest, rather the absolute statement you made which is often quite injuriously in our society today. However, if you can answer my question then maybe we can have a bit more dialogue and if you are interested in my opinion about the case and ask what it might be then maybe we can talk even beyond that. But I do not have a great deal to say about the case, again because it simply is not that provocative for me, personally.
Now let me illustrate my point about facts and legal adjudications. Now and then we read about a man or woman found guilty of murder when in fact he or she did not murder anyone. We all know of these cases. But the preponderance of the evidence convinced the jury that this person is guilty.
He or she is guilty, legally, but simply because there is a legal rendering does not allow us to assume this is, in fact, true merely by the legal rendering itself (and that is how your [Leah’s] statement was constructed). We certainly respect the finding of the jury (or judge) and of course it is binding and our course with that person is with this legal determination as overriding until more discovery can be made but still, the one does not equal the other. And like the person found guilty of murder but in fact did not murder anyone and later (after more discovery and the introduction of facts) this person is absolved of the crime, while he or she had been adjudicated guilty, the fact was he or she never murdered anyone. The legal rendering of guilty of murder and the fact that they really did not murder anyone were not the same. So it is not always the case therfore your (Leah’s) statement which reflects this kind of absolutism, is fallacious (again if this is what you are alluding to).
Now the best you one may state is “he or she is guilty and this is the truth as the facts exists”, but no such statement was made. And I have found that people that do not want to properly qualify their strong statements often refuse to do so because they are controlled by their own biases and what they want to be true without any interruption to their beliefs while protesting the biases of others. I certainly hope this is not the case.
****AGAIN, none of this is a reflection of my personal opinion of the case or whether the facts line up with the jury’s verdict. I haven’t said a word about that and have not revealed a single bit about that to anyone so any responses by anyone toward me thinking that they are warranted to address me on the issue as if I have revealed this are incorrect and operating on assumptions, assumptions of which they have no business making.
Thank you and enjoy your flight. :)
So you’re dealing entirely in hypotheticals? If so, no one could have ascertained that from your original post, in a thread where people are discussing attribution of guilt we can only assume that your statement pertains to the matter at hand. If could have prefaced your statement with “Hypothetically…” it may have made your intentions clear but the way you worded your response indicated that you did not accept the jury’s findings as truth.
That being said I completely disagree with you, I’m not going to live my life wondering and worrying if a jury made the right decision, Its our responsibility as citizens of a society to accept their verdicts as the truth of the matter because you me nor anyone but those involved were actually there.
A Jury unanimously decided that based on the evidence provided they believed the prosecution to be telling the truth in this case. Now unless there is some other evidence presented in the future I will side with the court of law.
That being said I completely disagree with you, I’m not going to live my life wondering and worrying if a jury made the right decision, Its our responsibility as citizens of a society to accept their verdicts as the truth of the matter because you me nor anyone but those involved were actually there.
A Jury unanimously decided that based on the evidence provided they believed the prosecution to be telling the truth in this case. Now unless there is some other evidence presented in the future I will side with the court of law.
This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.Just a few points of clarification since this post is almost totally incorrect.
A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ’s means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.
A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.
In a criminal trial, the standard for a guilty verdict is ” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt] beyond reasonable doubt ,” A civil trial uses the standard of ” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evid…] preponderance of the evidence .” Read the definitions because there are some important distinctions.
In criminal trials, the verdict is based on “evidence presented” (read the definition). Remember that evidence rules are fairly strict (which is why in this trial you had a number of sidebars, in chambers, and even courtroom discussions with the jury absent). So in some cases, not all the evidence is given for various reasons. Just recently, in Detroit, a http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/26_Years_After_Wrongful_Convict…] man was released after 26 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. In that trial, there was key evidence that was omitted. I am not in the least suggesting anything of the sort in this case. Merely pointing out that juries sometimes do not have all the evidence for various reasons.
The statement that “the jurors have no doubt” is also incorrect. It means that they believe the evidence points to guilt beyond reasonable doubt (not “no” doubt); for them there is no reasonable alternative based on the evidence presented.
A guilty verdict (or an acquittal) typically requires unanimity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of the evidence (as the post seems to suggest). It has to do with the percentage of the jury. It has to be 100% either way. One person on the jury can prevent a guilty verdict, and one person can prevent an acquittal. In such cases, a hung jury or mistrial is declared. If the jury acquits, the accused cannot be retried no matter what. If the jury is hung, the accused can be retried.
I am not sure what it means that “there is a difference between the guilty and not guilty verdicts.” In legal terms, there is a huge difference, in that when guilty, the defendant is punished and when no guilty he goes free. But in both cases, it requires unanimity.
[Larry]Correct, I was backward on preponderance…been a while since Law 1. I understand its not a percentage game, but that the only way I know to express it. I’m in accounting so I basically think only percentages. If a jury is leaning 75% guilty on an individual but doesn’t consider that enough to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” he could still be declared “not guilty”.This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.Just a few points of clarification since this post is almost totally incorrect.
A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ’s means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.
A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.
In a criminal trial, the standard for a guilty verdict is ” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt] beyond reasonable doubt ,” A civil trial uses the standard of ” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evid…] preponderance of the evidence .” Read the definitions because there are some important distinctions.
In criminal trials, the verdict is based on “evidence presented” (read the definition). Remember that evidence rules are fairly strict (which is why in this trial you had a number of sidebars, in chambers, and even courtroom discussions with the jury absent). So in some cases, not all the evidence is given for various reasons. Just recently, in Detroit, a http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/26_Years_After_Wrongful_Convict…] man was released after 26 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. In that trial, there was key evidence that was omitted. I am not in the least suggesting anything of the sort in this case. Merely pointing out that juries sometimes do not have all the evidence for various reasons.
The statement that “the jurors have no doubt” is also incorrect. It means that they believe the evidence points to guilt beyond reasonable doubt (not “no” doubt); for them there is no reasonable alternative based on the evidence presented.
A guilty verdict (or an acquittal) typically requires unanimity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of the evidence (as the post seems to suggest). It has to do with the percentage of the jury. It has to be 100% either way. One person on the jury can prevent a guilty verdict, and one person can prevent an acquittal. In such cases, a hung jury or mistrial is declared. If the jury acquits, the accused cannot be retried no matter what. If the jury is hung, the accused can be retried.
I am not sure what it means that “there is a difference between the guilty and not guilty verdicts.” In legal terms, there is a huge difference, in that when guilty, the defendant is punished and when no guilty he goes free. But in both cases, it requires unanimity.
Anyway, this guy is smarter than me in law, believe him.
[Alex Guggenheim]OK, I am on the plane and buckled in. I have my pretzels and cranberry juice— no ice— and my own water bottle to water it down after I drink a little. Would you care to speak to the specifics of this case involving Ernest Willis and the force-able rape of Tina Dooley Anderson when she was 15 years old?
****AGAIN, none of this is a reflection of my personal opinion of the case or whether the facts line up with the jury’s verdict. I haven’t said a word about that and have not revealed a single bit about that to anyone so any responses by anyone toward me thinking that they are warranted to address me on the issue as if I have revealed this are incorrect and operating on assumptions, assumptions of which they have no business making.
Thank you and enjoy your flight. :)
It is a long flight, so we have time Alex for you to weigh in on the conduct of Pastor Dr. Charles Phelps. What do you think of his conduct at the time? What do you think of his conduct with regard to his website? What do you think of his conduct giving testimony on the stand during the trial specificly of the rape trial involviing Ernest Willis and the crime against Tina Dooley Anderson when she was a 15 year old child? I am not going to use the word alleged crime because the court has declared a crime has been committed and ruled on 4 counts to that effect. In addition, Ernest Willis pleaded guilty to once of the charges—so either by his own admission or by verdict of the jury—he is guilty of various things.
You have finished the safety demonstration and we all know you put the oxygen mask on ourselves first and then to assist those seated near us who may need help. Please expound and what your thoughts are specifically on the Willis trial. We can open another thread for OJ if you want to break that down more.
Discussion