Guilty verdict in Chris Kyle case

[Peace Frog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It's not about evidence being throw out or not.

It's about having an impartial jury and a fair trial free from outside influences.

http://news.yahoo.com/american-snipe...160455695.html

The link above GUARANTEES a solid appeal for the Defendant.

Okay so they watched the movie. A prosecution of a defendant is basedon evidence so it is about just that...evidence. Unless you live in a third world country that is the way it works here in America. If a new trial is granted where in Texas do you want the trial held? And in this new trial what should it be based on? All evidence throw out? Because a new jury will make their decision on EVIDENCE!
I'm sorry you feel this murderer should have been acquitted but the evidence says he's guilty.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Peace Frog

(1) Okay so they watched the movie.

(2) A prosecution of a defendant is based on evidence so it is about just that...evidence.

(3) Unless you live in a third world country that is the way it works here in America.

(4) If a new trial is granted where in Texas do you want the trial held?

(5) And in this new trial what should it be based on? All evidence throw out?

(6) Because a new jury will make their decision on EVIDENCE!

(7) I'm sorry you feel this murderer should have been acquitted but the evidence says he's guilty.

(1) A movie that may or may not have swayed the jury members concerning the case. We'll never know for sure-- all we'll have is their word.

(2) Ok.

(3) I know how things are supposed to work here in America and then I also know reality.

(4) An appeal is different from a new trial all together. I am not sure there needs to be a new trial. I know the killer has a documented history of mental illness.

(5) The defense never questioned the guilt of the defendant and neither am I.

(6) Ok.

(7) I never said he should have been acquitted. The evidence also points to the possibility that the defendant could have had a mental breakdown at the time of shooting. I am guessing this is why the prosecution did not seek the death penalty.

[Peace Frog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

(1) A movie that may or may not have swayed the jury members concerning the case. We'll never know for sure-- all we'll have is their word.

(2) Ok.

(3) I know how things are supposed to work here in America and then I also know reality.

(4) An appeal is different from a new trial all together. I am not sure there needs to be a new trial. I know the killer has a documented history of mental illness.

(5) The defense never questioned the guilt of the defendant and neither am I.

(6) Ok.

(7) I never said he should have been acquitted. The evidence also points to the possibility that the defendant could have had a mental breakdown at the time of shooting. I am guessing this is why the prosecution did not seek the death penalty.

This jury just ruled that he was not criminally insane. They looked for evidence if he knew right from wrong. They found he did therefore he was found guilty. That is the way our system works like it or not.

We shall see who is right on this issue in time.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Peace Frog

This jury just ruled that he was not criminally insane. They looked for evidence if he knew right from wrong. They found he did therefore he was found guilty. That is the way our system works like it or not.

We shall see who is right on this issue in time.

In this particular case, I really don't care one way or the other. Like I said, there was never a doubt about his guilt. I think the release of the film before the trial did not do anything to serve justice and may have contributed to a miscarriage of justice. That's the most I've said.

You don't seem too peaceful, peace frog.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

In this particular case, I really don't care one way or the other. Like I said, there was never a doubt about his guilt. I think the release of the film before the trial did not do anything to serve justice and may have contributed to a miscarriage of justice. That's the most I've said.

You don't seem too peaceful, peace frog.

No doubt about his guilt - yet - film caused miscarriage of justice? How does that work together, sensibly?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No doubt about his guilt - yet - film caused miscarriage of justice? How does that work together, sensibly?

I guess miscarriage of justice has a new meaning now.

[Peace Frog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

In this particular case, I really don't care one way or the other. Like I said, there was never a doubt about his guilt. I think the release of the film before the trial did not do anything to serve justice and may have contributed to a miscarriage of justice. That's the most I've said.

You don't seem too peaceful, peace frog.

I'm not to peaceful because I don't agree with you? Okay then...

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Peace Frog

I'm not to peaceful because I don't agree with you? Okay then...

What's there to disagree about?
I don't understand.

[Peace Frog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What's there to disagree about?
I don't understand.

Well you seem to think he should get a new trial or the verdict thrown out because of the silly movie correct?
I believe the verdict is the correct one and he should and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Peace Frog

Well you seem to think he should get a new trial or the verdict thrown out because of the silly movie correct?
I believe the verdict is the correct one and he should and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

To be honest, I'm not even sure.

If the movie is proven to have swayed the jurors in any way, then yes, there has been a miscarriage of justice and there should be a new trial.

The whole thing hinges on the if and that will be explored during the appeal.

There are some who say the movie had nothing to do with outcome of the trial and if that is true, then so be it.

I just want to be sure that the guy received a fair trial. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying I'm not so sure.