5 ms·

In general, human testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence we have. People, even when they don't have incentive to lie, have horrible memories! It shou

In general, human testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence we have. People, even when they don't have incentive to lie, have horrible memories! It should barely be admissible, let alone for first degree murder, especially in cases like this where the witness is being bribed for his testimony.

justin_vanw 11y ago
You don't need CSI to convict someone of murder. In this case: Means: he knew the person who committed the physical attack and had influence over this person Motive: the victim was accusing him of embezzling $6000 Opportunity: plenty Proof defendant actually acted on the motive: he attempted to hide the body from discovery, helped hide the victims car, contributed to a conspiracy to cut the body up and dissolve it in acid, split the money from the victim's wallet with the other man involved, and made sure that cleaning staff that he managed were reassigned so that they would not find the body. None of this is in dispute! This is by itself enough to convict him.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Wow I'm surprised that we're only talking about $6000. Maybe this is a privileged reaction, but in USA is that sum worth all the trouble of even a "successful" murder, let alone the calamity this turned out to be? Morality helps morons more than it helps rational people. A rational person would realize that a disagreement over $6000 will be much less hassle over the long term than a murder conspiracy. Someone to whom that is not obvious, and who also lacks enough moral sense not to murder in such a situation, really is a threat to the public. Maybe we shouldn't kill him, and maybe a long prison sentence isn't the best answer, but at the very least the public ought to be warned that this guy is completely irrational and might decide to murder for no good reason at all.

5 ms·

In general, human testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence we have. People, even when they don't have incentive to lie, have horrible memories! It shou

by rottencupcakes 11y ago

justin_vanw 11y ago
You don't need CSI to convict someone of murder. In this case: Means: he knew the person who committed the physical attack and had influence over this person Motive: the victim was accusing him of embezzling $6000 Opportunity: plenty Proof defendant actually acted on the motive: he attempted to hide the body from discovery, helped hide the victims car, contributed to a conspiracy to cut the body up and dissolve it in acid, split the money from the victim's wallet with the other man involved, and made sure that cleaning staff that he managed were reassigned so that they would not find the body. None of this is in dispute! This is by itself enough to convict him.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Wow I'm surprised that we're only talking about $6000. Maybe this is a privileged reaction, but in USA is that sum worth all the trouble of even a "successful" murder, let alone the calamity this turned out to be? Morality helps morons more than it helps rational people. A rational person would realize that a disagreement over $6000 will be much less hassle over the long term than a murder conspiracy. Someone to whom that is not obvious, and who also lacks enough moral sense not to murder in such a situation, really is a threat to the public. Maybe we shouldn't kill him, and maybe a long prison sentence isn't the best answer, but at the very least the public ought to be warned that this guy is completely irrational and might decide to murder for no good reason at all.