Jack,
I think I misspoke with how I worded that. A jury will absolutely convict you of any other crime because they think you might have done it. When it comes to murder, the emphasis on the defense is "beyond a reasonable doubt" because not only are you trying to prove they actually killed the person, you also have to prove they intended to kill the person. It's very very easy to create doubt as to someone's intentions, so a murder conviction is extremely difficult. Manslaughter is much easier because you only have to prove their actions led to the death. (I don't have references, but I remember him discussing one of his lectures from Vanderbilt a long time ago that in most states, murder was the only conviction that could possibly carry the death penalty so jurors were very focused on being sure beyond a reasonable doubt where as other crimes they could be released from prison if new evidence came forward at a later date.)
One thing you learn from the legal profession is that human recollection is the weakest form of evidence. It has to do with how memories are formed and recalled, even simple memories get recalled incorrectly. There's a ton of studies showing this. That's why you hear people's stories as "cute" then look at real forensic evidence to make a case.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, I've posted my opinions and I'll go. You guys can feel free to continue "what ifs", but I simply don't buy the story. There are way too many holes in it. When better evidence comes out, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.
I'm curious about the coast guard report though... do they actually do any type of forensics? Or do they simply make a half-baked determination based on witness accounts?
I think I misspoke with how I worded that. A jury will absolutely convict you of any other crime because they think you might have done it. When it comes to murder, the emphasis on the defense is "beyond a reasonable doubt" because not only are you trying to prove they actually killed the person, you also have to prove they intended to kill the person. It's very very easy to create doubt as to someone's intentions, so a murder conviction is extremely difficult. Manslaughter is much easier because you only have to prove their actions led to the death. (I don't have references, but I remember him discussing one of his lectures from Vanderbilt a long time ago that in most states, murder was the only conviction that could possibly carry the death penalty so jurors were very focused on being sure beyond a reasonable doubt where as other crimes they could be released from prison if new evidence came forward at a later date.)
One thing you learn from the legal profession is that human recollection is the weakest form of evidence. It has to do with how memories are formed and recalled, even simple memories get recalled incorrectly. There's a ton of studies showing this. That's why you hear people's stories as "cute" then look at real forensic evidence to make a case.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, I've posted my opinions and I'll go. You guys can feel free to continue "what ifs", but I simply don't buy the story. There are way too many holes in it. When better evidence comes out, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.
I'm curious about the coast guard report though... do they actually do any type of forensics? Or do they simply make a half-baked determination based on witness accounts?