Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Tom
The people on the jury are in a better position of course, because they are shown evidence determined to be appropriate by law. The tv can show whatever they want and blur things and make inferences and innuendos.
Anyone remember the Scott Peterson trial? There was a day leading up to it where pictures from Petersons house were released to the media, and Nancy Grace had them. She showed a picture of an open phonebook on the kitchen counter and insisted that it was opened to Lawyers and claimed that it was evidence that Peterson knew he would be needing a lawyer. She went on for hours about it.
Next day it was revealed that it was open to Pizza as they had friends over for pizza that day.
People on the jury are absolutely in a better (meaning appropriate) position.
|
The courtroom coverage was straight forward. No fancy editing or embellishment. It was as accurate as actually sitting in the court room except for the fact they were not allowed to show the jury.
I made this point in another thread and I'll make it again for you.
Lets say that the neighbor's security camera caught Casey drowning her child in the pool, putting the body in the garbage bags, using the duct tape then placing the body in the trunk of her car ( there is no such tape, just making an example )
The video tape is presented as evidence in court. The jury leaves while the judge, lawyers AND the public via live television takes a look at the tape. Without a doubt it is determined that Casey actually did murder the child.
The Judge sees it. The lawyers see it along with everyone else in the courtroom AND the public sees it. The jury doesn't.
Now through some legal wrangling the defense lawyer is successful in getting the video tape which would have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her child omitted from evidence and the jury never gets to see it.
How in the hell can you say the jury is in a better position to make a judgement than those that actually got to see the evidence.