Here there is very little room for such creativity, the amount of contorting one would have to do in order not to conclude that Madsen killed Kim Wall is speaking volumes about those attempting it.
US jury system does it again
by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <[email protected]> on Monday April 28, 2008 @07:34PM (#23231238)
No evidence? No body? No murder weapon? Who cares! The
prosecutor used Power Point in his closing.. The
defendant is "weird".
Oh well, maybe Hans will confess and reveal where he
stashed the body now."
Edit: even sorted by "insightful", this thread is a nightmare:
by garcia ( 6573 )
While I could definitely see why he would kill that
thieving bitch of a ex-wife of his, I don't think they
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he definitely
killed her.
typical jury is a group of 12 people hand-picked by the
lawyers to be the most easily emotionally manipulated
people possible. You were expecting them to come to a
conclusion based on logic?
by OMNIpotusCOM
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Last I knew you had to prove that he planned to kill
someone with a first degree murder charge. If you can't
prove she's dead, and nobody saw her die, and there's no
evidence that she's anywhere other than where he says,
you can't convict a person of first degree murder.
Can you imagine what would happen if this guy was black?
No kidding. I would really like to see a poll of the
jury members, and if they would change their votes if
they had been told that Hans's ex-friend (the wife's new
dude) had confessed to killing 8 people.
Some facts are prejudicial.
Some facts are prejudicial for a very good reason.
I'd like to see numbers on how that would have changed things.He eventually did. It would have saved a lot of time and grief if he had done it earlier.
Way too many parallels with this case.
Let me feed your curiosity. The anwer is: Nothing. This is a interesting problem to eval from a purely intellectual point of view.
In a early phase of the analysis ALL ideas are important. This is similar in many aspects to trying to catch a bug in a program that starts to do unusual things. You could work serially just picking the simpler explanation and stop here, or you could instead make a list of all possibilities and check it against the facts, discarding some and keeping other until the real cause is revealed. There is nothing wrong with it.
The difference is that when debugging a program nobody things "this variable is ugly and evil, so the other variables linked with it must be passing good values". You need to check it. The problem can be (and often is) in the interaction between two functions.
Updating the case, we have a obvious murder. We have a dismembered corpse that explain the "need to sink the submarine", we know were, and probably who. We have a fair good picture of the problem, but we don't know still why. We need to understand the interaction.
Of course there must be a reason and I bet that will be very obvious when revealed... most lose ends are now in the post-murder phase. How the corpse arrived to that beach for example.