Ahhh I see u got all ur info of ryanfergusons site. Well depeche that site is written by his family and all bullshit . The bloodhounds actually traced Ryan and the little dudes route after the murder . Please get the real facts not the bs from his site and what dateline shows cause they want ratings
I've read the trial transcripts. All 2000+ pages. Have you? I get my info from source material. I'll educate you if you're willing to listen.
The bloodhounds traced the footprints to a U of Missouri dorm. Ryan and Chuck were high school students. Had nothing to do with them. In fact the bloodhounds traced the track of the two boys who left the scene in a direction opposite to what Chuck initially claimed. The cops later got him to change his story to fit what they wanted it to say.
The eyewitness who actually saw and spoke with one of the boys who was the source of the composite sketch has said in no uncertain terms that neither Ryan nor Chuck were the people that she saw.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
Ahhh I see u got all ur info of ryanfergusons site. Well depeche that site is written by his family and all bullshit . The bloodhounds actually traced Ryan and the little dudes route after the murder . Please get the real facts not the bs from his site and what dateline shows cause they want ratings
I've read the trial transcripts. All 2000+ pages. Have you? I get my info from source material. I'll educate you if you're willing to listen.
The bloodhounds traced the footprints to a U of Missouri dorm. Ryan and Chuck were high school students. Had nothing to do with them. In fact the bloodhounds traced the track of the two boys who left the scene in a direction opposite to what Chuck initially claimed. The cops later got him to change his story to fit what they wanted it to say.
The eyewitness who actually saw and spoke with one of the boys who was the source of the composite sketch has said in no uncertain terms that neither Ryan nor Chuck were the people that she saw.
Damn depeche u r really on this guy Ryan's side. U fail to mention they checked Ryan's house, car and other items 2 yrs later so of course they weren't going to find any evidence. Come on depeche ur smarter than that
The evidence from the scene -- blood, hair, fingerprints, shoeprints -- that was all well preserved and specifically tested on Ryan and Chuck. None of it matched them. None of it. At all. There was a bloody hair in the bloody hand of the decedent. It was not Ryan's hair. It was not Chuck's hair. And it was not the decedent's hair. It was the killer's hair because Kent put up a fight.
Explain to me how two drunk kids decide to commit a brutal bloody murder in the middle of the night and manage to commit the perfect murder, leaving not a shred of physical evidence anywhere? Of course, we know that the scene was littered with physical evidence of someone other than the decedent. This isn't rocket science. Do the fukkin math.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
Damn depeche u r really on this guy Ryan's side. U fail to mention they checked Ryan's house, car and other items 2 yrs later so of course they weren't going to find any evidence. Come on depeche ur smarter than that
The evidence from the scene -- blood, hair, fingerprints, shoeprints -- that was all well preserved and specifically tested on Ryan and Chuck. None of it matched them. None of it. At all. There was a bloody hair in the bloody hand of the decedent. It was not Ryan's hair. It was not Chuck's hair. And it was not the decedent's hair. It was the killer's hair because Kent put up a fight.
Explain to me how two drunk kids decide to commit a brutal bloody murder in the middle of the night and manage to commit the perfect murder, leaving not a shred of physical evidence anywhere? Of course, we know that the scene was littered with physical evidence of someone other than the decedent. This isn't rocket science. Do the fukkin math.
Oh and another thing about this jury u call stupid. Well what do u expect them to say when a guy comes in and says he did it than tells everyone in court how he did it too. Lol....what do u want them to say ? Not guilty? Come on man
Which 'guy' are you talking about? Ryan was consistent in maintaining he had nothing to do with it from the very start. Chuck was a confused mentally ill kid. I do get how the jury wasn't able to wrap their hands around that and quite frankly Ryan's defense did a poor job at trial of explaining this.
But I think he was also convicting because at trial the janitor ID's Ryan as the guy he saw. Of course we now know that was a complete lie. Even the judge recently found that was a lie and the janitor could go to jail for perjury. The jury figured he had no reason to lie. They figured wrong.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
Oh and another thing about this jury u call stupid. Well what do u expect them to say when a guy comes in and says he did it than tells everyone in court how he did it too. Lol....what do u want them to say ? Not guilty? Come on man
Which 'guy' are you talking about? Ryan was consistent in maintaining he had nothing to do with it from the very start. Chuck was a confused mentally ill kid. I do get how the jury wasn't able to wrap their hands around that and quite frankly Ryan's defense did a poor job at trial of explaining this.
But I think he was also convicting because at trial the janitor ID's Ryan as the guy he saw. Of course we now know that was a complete lie. Even the judge recently found that was a lie and the janitor could go to jail for perjury. The jury figured he had no reason to lie. They figured wrong.
And the main reason why this is even on the news is because his dads freaking loaded and is paying everyone to come and say some bs in court and getting the media involved....they r guilty
If his dad is so loaded then why is a high priced lawyer taking on the case PRO BONO? His dad did spend a lot in his defense. I think "loaded" is a huge exaggeration, but what does that have to do with anything. Who did he pay to say some bs in court? What a bunch of BS.
What is your evidence to say they're guilty? Let's hear it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
And the main reason why this is even on the news is because his dads freaking loaded and is paying everyone to come and say some bs in court and getting the media involved....they r guilty
If his dad is so loaded then why is a high priced lawyer taking on the case PRO BONO? His dad did spend a lot in his defense. I think "loaded" is a huge exaggeration, but what does that have to do with anything. Who did he pay to say some bs in court? What a bunch of BS.
What is your evidence to say they're guilty? Let's hear it.
Bro, ur wrong chuck knew a few things that wasn't told to the public. Look it up and u will see. Chuck killed the guy but Ryan was a accessory . The black guy was actually really good friends with the victim and the victim is the one who hooked him up with that job so he had no motive. Chuck was on adderal, cocaine, weed and alcohol so he didn't remember it exactly. I believe it cause sh it I've done things just by taking ambien and not remember doing it . Possible
I have read the entire trial transcripts and all of the pleadings. Chuck didn't know ANYTHING that wasn't either previously in the media or fed to him by the police and prosecutor. The prosecution has tried to claim otherwise, but each claim is easily shot down. Part of the problem is some of the initial interviews of Chuck were not recorded. But you can watch most of the interviews yourself -- he didn't know jack until the police told him what happened. They even drive him to the scene and pointed out to him where the murder happened. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
And by the way, Chuck is 100% innocent as well. He blacked out that night, had dreams and then thought the pic in the paper was him so he filled in the blanks. The whole thing is very Kafka-esque.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
Bro, ur wrong chuck knew a few things that wasn't told to the public. Look it up and u will see. Chuck killed the guy but Ryan was a accessory . The black guy was actually really good friends with the victim and the victim is the one who hooked him up with that job so he had no motive. Chuck was on adderal, cocaine, weed and alcohol so he didn't remember it exactly. I believe it cause sh it I've done things just by taking ambien and not remember doing it . Possible
I have read the entire trial transcripts and all of the pleadings. Chuck didn't know ANYTHING that wasn't either previously in the media or fed to him by the police and prosecutor. The prosecution has tried to claim otherwise, but each claim is easily shot down. Part of the problem is some of the initial interviews of Chuck were not recorded. But you can watch most of the interviews yourself -- he didn't know jack until the police told him what happened. They even drive him to the scene and pointed out to him where the murder happened. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
And by the way, Chuck is 100% innocent as well. He blacked out that night, had dreams and then thought the pic in the paper was him so he filled in the blanks. The whole thing is very Kafka-esque.
The evidence from the scene -- blood, hair, fingerprints, shoeprints -- that was all well preserved and specifically tested on Ryan and Chuck. None of it matched them. None of it. At all. There was a bloody hair in the bloody hand of the decedent. It was not Ryan's hair. It was not Chuck's hair. And it was not the decedent's hair. It was the killer's hair because Kent put up a fight.
Explain to me how two drunk kids decide to commit a brutal bloody murder in the middle of the night and manage to commit the perfect murder, leaving not a shred of physical evidence anywhere? Of course, we know that the scene was littered with physical evidence of someone other than the decedent. This isn't rocket science. Do the fukkin math.
The decedent had hair in his hand that was DNA tested on both of the accused and no match came up?
This was presented by the defense as well?
This was not mentioned on the dateline program amazingly.
How in the world did the prosecution explain this away for the jury??? Did they even address it??? Why didn't the defense make this their primary focus for innocence?
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
The evidence from the scene -- blood, hair, fingerprints, shoeprints -- that was all well preserved and specifically tested on Ryan and Chuck. None of it matched them. None of it. At all. There was a bloody hair in the bloody hand of the decedent. It was not Ryan's hair. It was not Chuck's hair. And it was not the decedent's hair. It was the killer's hair because Kent put up a fight.
Explain to me how two drunk kids decide to commit a brutal bloody murder in the middle of the night and manage to commit the perfect murder, leaving not a shred of physical evidence anywhere? Of course, we know that the scene was littered with physical evidence of someone other than the decedent. This isn't rocket science. Do the fukkin math.
The decedent had hair in his hand that was DNA tested on both of the accused and no match came up?
This was presented by the defense as well?
This was not mentioned on the dateline program amazingly.
How in the world did the prosecution explain this away for the jury??? Did they even address it??? Why didn't the defense make this their primary focus for innocence?
The decedent had hair in his hand that was DNA tested on both of the accused and no match came up?
This was presented by the defense as well?
This was not mentioned on the dateline program amazingly.
How in the world did the prosecution explain this away for the jury??? Did they even address it??? Why didn't the defense make this their primary focus for innocence?
Baffling, isn't it? Dateline did mention that there was no physical evidence tying them to the scene. But yes, there was specifically a bloody hair strand in the bloody flam of the decedent. The prosecution tried to explain away that it could have been transferred from someone else or by someone processing the scene or whatever. Plus, the prosecutor flat out lied in closing and claimed there was no hair in the hand. Tried to confuse the jury. Check out this YouTube video on point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPMxf-mu5ng
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
The decedent had hair in his hand that was DNA tested on both of the accused and no match came up?
This was presented by the defense as well?
This was not mentioned on the dateline program amazingly.
How in the world did the prosecution explain this away for the jury??? Did they even address it??? Why didn't the defense make this their primary focus for innocence?
Baffling, isn't it? Dateline did mention that there was no physical evidence tying them to the scene. But yes, there was specifically a bloody hair strand in the bloody flam of the decedent. The prosecution tried to explain away that it could have been transferred from someone else or by someone processing the scene or whatever. Plus, the prosecutor flat out lied in closing and claimed there was no hair in the hand. Tried to confuse the jury. Check out this YouTube video on point:
Baffling, isn't it? Dateline did mention that there was no physical evidence tying them to the scene. But yes, there was specifically a bloody hair strand in the bloody flam of the decedent. The prosecution tried to explain away that it could have been transferred from someone else or by someone processing the scene or whatever. Plus, the prosecutor flat out lied in closing and claimed there was no hair in the hand. Tried to confuse the jury. Check out this YouTube video on point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPMxf-mu5ng
That is just unbelievable.
He just flat-out contradicted what he knows is the truth and later affirmed as the truth to put this kid away for the rest of his meaningful life.
Disgusting, scary, stomach-turning miscarriage of justice.
That video should have 20 million views, not 2,000. All of our legal rights are at stake when a prosecutor blatantly lies and is caught doing it as a representative of the state just to get a conviction.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Baffling, isn't it? Dateline did mention that there was no physical evidence tying them to the scene. But yes, there was specifically a bloody hair strand in the bloody flam of the decedent. The prosecution tried to explain away that it could have been transferred from someone else or by someone processing the scene or whatever. Plus, the prosecutor flat out lied in closing and claimed there was no hair in the hand. Tried to confuse the jury. Check out this YouTube video on point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPMxf-mu5ng
That is just unbelievable.
He just flat-out contradicted what he knows is the truth and later affirmed as the truth to put this kid away for the rest of his meaningful life.
Disgusting, scary, stomach-turning miscarriage of justice.
That video should have 20 million views, not 2,000. All of our legal rights are at stake when a prosecutor blatantly lies and is caught doing it as a representative of the state just to get a conviction.
He just flat-out contradicted what he knows is the truth and later affirmed as the truth to put this kid away for the rest of his meaningful life.
Disgusting, scary, stomach-turning miscarriage of justice.
That video should have 20 million views, not 2,000. All of our legal rights are at stake when a prosecutor blatantly lies and is caught doing it as a representative of the state just to get a conviction.
And get this....that prosecutor (the dishonorable KEVIN CRANE) retired just a few months after this trial in favor of becoming a trial judge, taking over on the bench for the retiring judge that presided over this trial.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
That is just unbelievable.
He just flat-out contradicted what he knows is the truth and later affirmed as the truth to put this kid away for the rest of his meaningful life.
Disgusting, scary, stomach-turning miscarriage of justice.
That video should have 20 million views, not 2,000. All of our legal rights are at stake when a prosecutor blatantly lies and is caught doing it as a representative of the state just to get a conviction.
And get this....that prosecutor (the dishonorable KEVIN CRANE) retired just a few months after this trial in favor of becoming a trial judge, taking over on the bench for the retiring judge that presided over this trial.
And get this....that prosecutor (the dishonorable KEVIN CRANE) retired just a few months after this trial in favor of becoming a trial judge, taking over on the bench for the retiring judge that presided over this trial.
Well that just puts the icing on the cake doesn't it?
Reward the man who saved face with a biased decision for the prosecution with a state seat of status and privilege.
He retires after a judgement in which the lone witness recanted his testimony and perjured himself which he ultimately reasoned 'wouldn't have had an effect on the jury at the time.' Sure it wouldn't. He's just the only eyewitness.
Was Chuck ever diagnosed, before the first or second trial as being bipolar or manic depressive to have concocted a story such as this? Wouldn't a diagnoses by a professional put anything he says with a grain of salt? He is the now ONLY reason the two of these kids ever went to prison. This is after clear and undeniable leading questions and compelled/planted answers interrogators towards what is likely a mental incompetent.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
And get this....that prosecutor (the dishonorable KEVIN CRANE) retired just a few months after this trial in favor of becoming a trial judge, taking over on the bench for the retiring judge that presided over this trial.
Well that just puts the icing on the cake doesn't it?
Reward the man who saved face with a biased decision for the prosecution with a state seat of status and privilege.
He retires after a judgement in which the lone witness recanted his testimony and perjured himself which he ultimately reasoned 'wouldn't have had an effect on the jury at the time.' Sure it wouldn't. He's just the only eyewitness.
Was Chuck ever diagnosed, before the first or second trial as being bipolar or manic depressive to have concocted a story such as this? Wouldn't a diagnoses by a professional put anything he says with a grain of salt? He is the now ONLY reason the two of these kids ever went to prison. This is after clear and undeniable leading questions and compelled/planted answers interrogators towards what is likely a mental incompetent.
Well that just puts the icing on the cake doesn't it?
Reward the man who saved face with a biased decision for the prosecution with a state seat of status and privilege.
He retires after a judgement in which the lone witness recanted his testimony and perjured himself which he ultimately reasoned 'wouldn't have had an effect on the jury at the time.' Sure it wouldn't. He's just the only eyewitness.
Was Chuck ever diagnosed, before the first or second trial as being bipolar or manic depressive to have concocted a story such as this? Wouldn't a diagnoses by a professional put anything he says with a grain of salt? He is the now ONLY reason the two of these kids ever went to prison. This is after clear and undeniable leading questions and compelled/planted answers interrogators towards what is likely a mental incompetent.
He did have a history of mental issues and was evaluated I think it was December of 20101. Not sure if there was a particular diagnosis. He had serious substance abuse problems and had experienced blackouts around that time and as everyone now believes on the night in question. Experts say that blackouts literally cause permanent gaps in memory. Chuck filled in that gap by putting himself in this crime. The defense tried to present all that at trial, including the foremost expert on memory, but it just wasn't presented the way it should have been. The jury just couldn't wrap their heads around a person agreeing to 25 years for a crime they didn't commit.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Well that just puts the icing on the cake doesn't it?
Reward the man who saved face with a biased decision for the prosecution with a state seat of status and privilege.
He retires after a judgement in which the lone witness recanted his testimony and perjured himself which he ultimately reasoned 'wouldn't have had an effect on the jury at the time.' Sure it wouldn't. He's just the only eyewitness.
Was Chuck ever diagnosed, before the first or second trial as being bipolar or manic depressive to have concocted a story such as this? Wouldn't a diagnoses by a professional put anything he says with a grain of salt? He is the now ONLY reason the two of these kids ever went to prison. This is after clear and undeniable leading questions and compelled/planted answers interrogators towards what is likely a mental incompetent.
He did have a history of mental issues and was evaluated I think it was December of 20101. Not sure if there was a particular diagnosis. He had serious substance abuse problems and had experienced blackouts around that time and as everyone now believes on the night in question. Experts say that blackouts literally cause permanent gaps in memory. Chuck filled in that gap by putting himself in this crime. The defense tried to present all that at trial, including the foremost expert on memory, but it just wasn't presented the way it should have been. The jury just couldn't wrap their heads around a person agreeing to 25 years for a crime they didn't commit.
Depeche, u want my evidence that they did it? Well I guess when someone admits to doing something I shouldn't believe it...come on man. The guy admitted he did it. Who wants to go to jail for life? HE ADMIT THAT THEY DID IT
0
Depeche, u want my evidence that they did it? Well I guess when someone admits to doing something I shouldn't believe it...come on man. The guy admitted he did it. Who wants to go to jail for life? HE ADMIT THAT THEY DID IT
He did have a history of mental issues and was evaluated I think it was December of 20101. Not sure if there was a particular diagnosis. He had serious substance abuse problems and had experienced blackouts around that time and as everyone now believes on the night in question. Experts say that blackouts literally cause permanent gaps in memory. Chuck filled in that gap by putting himself in this crime. The defense tried to present all that at trial, including the foremost expert on memory, but it just wasn't presented the way it should have been. The jury just couldn't wrap their heads around a person agreeing to 25 years for a crime they didn't commit.
That is just unreal. So the testimony of someone who is at a minimum a questionable mental incompetent is the deciding factor in a trial, and a jury that was presented with evidence of this, however shoddy, unanimously decides against these kids even though NOTHING at the scene in or on the Chuck or Ryan's car, person or house, shows anything that in way of a murder being committed.
This is the 21st century? Are you kidding me?
Every state in the Union needs a justice system that provides a second tier of alternate jurors and/or panel of judges in murder cases to ensure 12 buffoons from some podunk town in middle America don't put people to death or put innocent individuals away for life.
How is 12 random citizens, likely bored to death in a trial that lasts weeks or months, coming to any decision 'justice?' They want to get home and back to their regular lives and have heard enough to convince them to come to some decision, any decision that will get them out of there.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
He did have a history of mental issues and was evaluated I think it was December of 20101. Not sure if there was a particular diagnosis. He had serious substance abuse problems and had experienced blackouts around that time and as everyone now believes on the night in question. Experts say that blackouts literally cause permanent gaps in memory. Chuck filled in that gap by putting himself in this crime. The defense tried to present all that at trial, including the foremost expert on memory, but it just wasn't presented the way it should have been. The jury just couldn't wrap their heads around a person agreeing to 25 years for a crime they didn't commit.
That is just unreal. So the testimony of someone who is at a minimum a questionable mental incompetent is the deciding factor in a trial, and a jury that was presented with evidence of this, however shoddy, unanimously decides against these kids even though NOTHING at the scene in or on the Chuck or Ryan's car, person or house, shows anything that in way of a murder being committed.
This is the 21st century? Are you kidding me?
Every state in the Union needs a justice system that provides a second tier of alternate jurors and/or panel of judges in murder cases to ensure 12 buffoons from some podunk town in middle America don't put people to death or put innocent individuals away for life.
How is 12 random citizens, likely bored to death in a trial that lasts weeks or months, coming to any decision 'justice?' They want to get home and back to their regular lives and have heard enough to convince them to come to some decision, any decision that will get them out of there.
Depeche, u want my evidence that they did it? Well I guess when someone admits to doing something I shouldn't believe it...come on man. The guy admitted he did it. Who wants to go to jail for life? HE ADMIT THAT THEY DID IT
What "guy" are you talking about? Ryan Ferguson didn't admit to anything. He said he had nothing whatsoever to do with this and has never changed his story one iota.
The OTHER GUY, Chuck Erickson, didn't go to jail for life. He pled to get 25 years (out in 14) to avoid what he thought would be either life in prison or the death penalty. The cops told him his head was on the chopping block. Chuck blacked out that night, 2 years later starting imagining he might have done it and then when the cops interrogated him they convinced him that he did it and threatened that he was on the chopping block if he didn't cooperate with the info they were feeding him.
You are obviously not well acquainted with the case. Go do some research and then we can talk if you haven't already changed your mind at that point. It will take me too much time to educate you on the facts.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
Depeche, u want my evidence that they did it? Well I guess when someone admits to doing something I shouldn't believe it...come on man. The guy admitted he did it. Who wants to go to jail for life? HE ADMIT THAT THEY DID IT
What "guy" are you talking about? Ryan Ferguson didn't admit to anything. He said he had nothing whatsoever to do with this and has never changed his story one iota.
The OTHER GUY, Chuck Erickson, didn't go to jail for life. He pled to get 25 years (out in 14) to avoid what he thought would be either life in prison or the death penalty. The cops told him his head was on the chopping block. Chuck blacked out that night, 2 years later starting imagining he might have done it and then when the cops interrogated him they convinced him that he did it and threatened that he was on the chopping block if he didn't cooperate with the info they were feeding him.
You are obviously not well acquainted with the case. Go do some research and then we can talk if you haven't already changed your mind at that point. It will take me too much time to educate you on the facts.
And by the way, while this was not the case here because Ryan most certainly never confessed to anything, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of cases of police coercing completely false confessions. Happens quite often.
0
And by the way, while this was not the case here because Ryan most certainly never confessed to anything, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of cases of police coercing completely false confessions. Happens quite often.
I'm 100% sure Ryan was there when the murder happened. Chuck killed the guy though but Ryan was there.....HE IS WAY TOO CALM ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING.....IF IT WAS ANYONE ELSE THEY WOULD'VE TORE THE COURTROOM , THE JAIL, THE BAILOFF, THE JUDGE AND THE WHOLE WORLD IF THEY WERE INNOCENT, NOT SITTING THERE SO CALM DOING 40 yrs ...he knows they did it
0
I'm 100% sure Ryan was there when the murder happened. Chuck killed the guy though but Ryan was there.....HE IS WAY TOO CALM ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING.....IF IT WAS ANYONE ELSE THEY WOULD'VE TORE THE COURTROOM , THE JAIL, THE BAILOFF, THE JUDGE AND THE WHOLE WORLD IF THEY WERE INNOCENT, NOT SITTING THERE SO CALM DOING 40 yrs ...he knows they did it
I'm 100% sure Ryan was there when the murder happened. Chuck killed the guy though but Ryan was there.....HE IS WAY TOO CALM ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING.....IF IT WAS ANYONE ELSE THEY WOULD'VE TORE THE COURTROOM , THE JAIL, THE BAILOFF, THE JUDGE AND THE WHOLE WORLD IF THEY WERE INNOCENT, NOT SITTING THERE SO CALM DOING 40 yrs ...he knows they did it
100% sure...LOL
If you weren't on the jury, you have the exact same mindset as those who were on it.
You just had someone with intimate knowledge of the case present you with virtually every reason to exonerate these two based on the testimony at the trial and what do you come back with as your counter-argument as to why they are guilty?
HE IS WAY TO CALM ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the American justice system is largely a failure in many cases like this one.
This poster may very well have served on a jury or received notice for jury duty and he believes these two are guilty, not because of evidence, but because Ryan's nonverbals at the trial, that is, his composure. Amazing huh. Uh, not so much. Many, many cases are decided based on flimsy biases just like that.
I believe the jurors in this case went into deliberations saying the exact same thing (i.e. "I didn't like the way he just sat there all calm when I man is dead. I think he did it. ...evidence be damned)...
Sad...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sjabo:
I'm 100% sure Ryan was there when the murder happened. Chuck killed the guy though but Ryan was there.....HE IS WAY TOO CALM ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING.....IF IT WAS ANYONE ELSE THEY WOULD'VE TORE THE COURTROOM , THE JAIL, THE BAILOFF, THE JUDGE AND THE WHOLE WORLD IF THEY WERE INNOCENT, NOT SITTING THERE SO CALM DOING 40 yrs ...he knows they did it
100% sure...LOL
If you weren't on the jury, you have the exact same mindset as those who were on it.
You just had someone with intimate knowledge of the case present you with virtually every reason to exonerate these two based on the testimony at the trial and what do you come back with as your counter-argument as to why they are guilty?
HE IS WAY TO CALM ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the American justice system is largely a failure in many cases like this one.
This poster may very well have served on a jury or received notice for jury duty and he believes these two are guilty, not because of evidence, but because Ryan's nonverbals at the trial, that is, his composure. Amazing huh. Uh, not so much. Many, many cases are decided based on flimsy biases just like that.
I believe the jurors in this case went into deliberations saying the exact same thing (i.e. "I didn't like the way he just sat there all calm when I man is dead. I think he did it. ...evidence be damned)...
If you weren't on the jury, you have the exact same mindset as those who were on it.
You just had someone with intimate knowledge of the case present you with virtually every reason to exonerate these two based on the testimony at the trial and what do you come back with as your counter-argument as to why they are guilty?
HE IS WAY TO CALM ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the American justice system is largely a failure in many cases like this one.
This poster may very well have served on a jury or received notice for jury duty and he believes these two are guilty, not because of evidence, but because Ryan's nonverbals at the trial, that is, his composure. Amazing huh. Uh, not so much. Many, many cases are decided based on flimsy biases just like that.
I believe the jurors in this case went into deliberations saying the exact same thing (i.e. "I didn't like the way he just sat there all calm when I man is dead. I think he did it. ...evidence be damned)...
Sad...
Bingo!
And here I am taking my time to explain the FACTS to him and he comes back with a 'I know 100% he's guilty because he was too calm and I didn't like his expressions' response.
I could be wrong, and I shouldn't turn this to politics, but the way this guy talks I think I'd have to put large money on him being a Republican. Not governed by facts.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
100% sure...LOL
If you weren't on the jury, you have the exact same mindset as those who were on it.
You just had someone with intimate knowledge of the case present you with virtually every reason to exonerate these two based on the testimony at the trial and what do you come back with as your counter-argument as to why they are guilty?
HE IS WAY TO CALM ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the American justice system is largely a failure in many cases like this one.
This poster may very well have served on a jury or received notice for jury duty and he believes these two are guilty, not because of evidence, but because Ryan's nonverbals at the trial, that is, his composure. Amazing huh. Uh, not so much. Many, many cases are decided based on flimsy biases just like that.
I believe the jurors in this case went into deliberations saying the exact same thing (i.e. "I didn't like the way he just sat there all calm when I man is dead. I think he did it. ...evidence be damned)...
Sad...
Bingo!
And here I am taking my time to explain the FACTS to him and he comes back with a 'I know 100% he's guilty because he was too calm and I didn't like his expressions' response.
I could be wrong, and I shouldn't turn this to politics, but the way this guy talks I think I'd have to put large money on him being a Republican. Not governed by facts.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
