Webby

You obviously have your opinions on "3rd world countries". I have no idea about these countries unless I have spent some time in them - and as far as their laws are concerned - I prefer to have some experience of the laws before offering *any* opinion. Grouping all countries and saying it is a "fact of life" is just absurd.

The legal system here is actually far more refined than in many other countries - including the US. Simple reason is they had more time to do this and operated it for centuries based on old Euro law (in this case Spanish law).

Nicaragua is much the same, - but is certainly not near the stability level of Costa Rica (you may remember the usual "US wars" there), but has rapidly changed in many areas and now showing great potential. That said, the legal system is very much the same and very fair allowance given in things such as criminal trials. It actually takes a lot of effort and "real evidence" to obtain a criminal conviction (same as Costa Rica) and both the quality/experience of judges is not an issue. Judges are not elected on a popularity poll, but on a longish track record of legal experience and... well, they know a liar when they see one - they are not stupid :-) Judges can also examine a witness to extract any further detail a prosecution or defense may not wish to discuss - or witness credibility. Bottom line - crap witnesses don't work :-)


Want my "opinion"?? :-) We know nothing about the actual evidence - neither does the media. The parties to "evidence" are the prosecution, defense and the court - nobody else. We can give our "opinions" on what has been reported - but that's the limit. The judge did give her summary of the case at the time of trial, - she has her reasons, and if these are grossly inaccurate or unfair, this will surface at appeal and obviously help the defendant.

Simple example... it's easy for anyone to say whatever they like in court - that does not count. What counts is hardcore evidence. OK.. Mentioned the case I'm involved in now - it's not a criminal matter, but... hoping the final decision of the court will result in enabling follow-on criminal prosecution. In this instance - tho I may have had a conversation with an individual who proposed a fraud - that is totally inadequate as "evidence". It's one person's word against the other. Similarly, if, eg... proof of payment arose as an issue... the court could not give a damn about a bank statement showing the amount - they want a notorized copy of the actual check - not some wannabee evidence :-)

In the trial for murder - listening to media reports is kinda useless, - simply because they will not get down to the actual detail of evidence, - but can speculate on this and that etc. Media is not a court - they are not paid to come to any verdict - a judge is trained and paid to do this.

Bottom line... it's irrelevant what we think, what Dateline thinks, what the defense fund or supporters of the defendant say - none of them are either qualified and simply give "opinions".

I know and understand there is a tendency to have media trials in the US and have parties commenting on alleged evidence which may suit their case - and plenty of Ms Grace etc. Most countries do not have that scenario - and here is the same. There are no trials by media or "commenting" on cases. What there is can be straight reporting of court events - without opinions.

I think you will find that this defendant will have a good opportunity to present and additional defense evidence - and be able to contest the trial judge logic and verdict. This is treated seriously and there will be more than one appeal court judge for the presentation.

__________________
XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.