Anthony's Verdict

Home Forums Controversial Topics Anthony's Verdict

Viewing 16 posts - 51 through 66 (of 66 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #784071
    Pac-Man
    Member

    Even if it is ‘likely’ or ‘probable’ that she committed the murder (which I’m not even saying that much is the case), she must be acquitted. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And the Torah standard of proof required in a beis din case is beyond a shadow of doubt.

    #784072
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    And the Torah standard of proof required in a beis din case is beyond a shadow of doubt.

    No, Joe. The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. It has nothing to do with how much they are believable; it is a din.

    #784073
    Pac-Man
    Member

    popa: Every Dayan voting to convict MUST find the eidim CREDIBLE and believe in the defendant’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    #784074
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Interesting. Where do you get that from?

    #784075
    Pac-Man
    Member

    It’s Dayanus 101.

    #784076
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    It’s Dayanus 101.

    I see. You made it up. Nice.

    (Now, even if you find a source that it is true, we’ll still know you originally made it up.)

    #784077
    metrodriver
    Member

    Pac-man; “It’s Dayanus 101”. It might be. It might even be common sense 101. But, can you cite a source for that standard in Talmud Bavli or Yerushalmi?

    #784078
    Pac-Man
    Member

    popa: When you’re a Dayan, if two guys off the street testify their next door neighbor committed a murder, and they crossed all their t’s and dotted all their i’s, and worked out their story together straight as an arrow, but you smell a rat but can’t figure out a disproof to the witnesses, you will behead the accused?

    #784079
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Well, there is a concept of ??? ?????, which I saw in choshen mishpat and applies to ??????, which is that if the dayanim see that there are tricks going on, they can refuse to judge the case. There may be a similar idea for ?????.

    However, that is a far cry from needing to be sure the eidim are telling the truth. You simply need the lack of seeing that they are playing tricks.

    #784080
    Pac-Man
    Member

    In any event, in the case at hand 1) there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt, even if one thinks there was probable proof 2) in beis din valid truthful eyewitnesses constitutes proof beyond a shadow of doubt 3) in this case there were no witnesses.

    Therefore, be it resolved, the defendent Casey Anthony was rightfully acquitted in the eye of the law, both Torah and American.

    #784081
    Health
    Participant

    Joe -Wrong on both counts:

    1. From my previous posts: The evidence here is called circumstantial, but never the less this evidence has found many a person guilty. She is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

    2. The Halacha is – in a case of circumstantial evidence that you put the criminal in a Kippa; they don’t get off scot free!!

    #784082
    charliehall
    Participant

    “The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. “

    Actually for a gentile court it is one witness of any type. See Sanhedrin 57a. But even that standard was not met in this case.

    #784083
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    “The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. “

    Actually for a gentile court it is one witness of any type. See Sanhedrin 57a. But even that standard was not met in this case.

    Yes that is so, we have discussed. I thought he was referring to what it would be in our din for us.

    #784084
    cherrybim
    Participant

    Health – “She is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.”

    You keep on saying that but there is no evidence at all that anyone did anything; only that Casey is an idiot.

    Regarding your previous post; as much as we want to believe them, police are known to lie on the stand.

    While Bais Din does a drisha v’chakira of the eidim to assure valid testimony; this does not rule out false witnesses.

    #784085
    flowers
    Participant

    If you work with a woman, and she tells you her washing machine broke. Might you give her advice on who she can call, or what to do?

    Now lets suppose she asks you how much makeup you think is appropriate for her to wear, or some other questions portaining to dress, that I won’t even mention, even though I can find it on threads.

    Do you see a difference, or it’s all the same to you?

    #784086
    Health
    Participant

    cherrybim – “You keep on saying that but there is no evidence at all that anyone did anything; only that Casey is an idiot.”

    And I’ll keep saying it until you get my point. You obviously think that circumstantial evidence can’t be enough to be considered “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Yet many, many cases -Courts have found people guilty with just circumstantial evidence. IMHO and the opinion of many others in this country, this case, even though it’s based on circumstantial evidence, exceeds the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”!

    “Regarding your previous post; as much as we want to believe them, police are known to lie on the stand.”

    Again, you failed to understand my point. Whether police should be believed more than anyone else, I said to this – I understand if this belief disqualifies potentional jurors. But my disbelief was on your statement that cops are believed less than e/o else and they need to have corroborating evidence to be believed. Why in the world shouldn’t they be believed the same as e/o else? Are cops the only ones whom have ever lied on the witness stand?!?!

    I don’t know if you’re a liberal or not, but these views that you present are the most ludicrous I’ve ever heard!

Viewing 16 posts - 51 through 66 (of 66 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.