I get that. But it's ridiculously obvious he is the killer. And she is trying to reduce his bail money? I am not a lawyer but if I took on a client who is obviously guilty I would tone down my zealousness tbh.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
To catch a killer, police leave mannequin on sidewalk - man bashes it with hammer
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
I get that. But it's ridiculously obvious he is the killer. And she is trying to reduce his bail money? I am not a lawyer but if I took on a client who is obviously guilty I would tone down my zealousness tbh.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I wonder if there is enough forensic evidence on the two victims that can show similarities in how he struck the decoy. I'd think they could tell the hammer's size and how it was swung from the wounds.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I absolutely agree that he most likely did it, but it's not his or his lawyer's job to prove that there is no link between him smashing a manniquin and then murders, it's the prosecutions job to prove that there is a link. There's a difference.
Ah, fair enough, that's an important distinction. Then my next question would be why do we even need a trial in a case like this? The courts are busy enough already
Triggerhappytel
Member
I know it's her job, but I wonder if these people ever get a crisis of conscience when they have to defend and potentially get off the hook obviously guilty murderers.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Well if they don't get any physical evidence tying him to the original murders we might not even get a trial.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
He probably will get away with them anyway. Unless he was using the same hammer it would be impossible to prove he did it even though we all know he did.
Doug Heffernan
Member
They could find blood DNA evidence linking him to it but it's a long shot.
Isn't there video of him smashing the mannequin? That is the physical evidence. If it's just some cop swearing he smashed the mannequin then there's a high chance he's just boning the cop's wife
Ninja Scooter
Member
That's not physical evidence. That's just video of him smashing a mannequin. He's guilty of vandalism. Physical evidence would be something, dna, hairs, fingerprints, that ties him directly to the murders. What they have so far is totally circumstantial.
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
A country where people can just be prosecuted without a right to defend themselves is a very scary proposition.
Ragnorok64
Member
A lawyer intentionally not doing their best to defend their client opens up the door for a mistrial declaration down the road. It's the prosecution's job the get a conviction not the defense.
Aren't statistics about reality evidence too though? Like, just do the survey asking a sample of the local population if smashing mannequin heads is really their hobby. To reduce the incidence of people jokingly saying yes, explain their answers will play a role in deciding a man's fate, their answers will decide whether murderers get to roam free. When less than 1% of respondents say that smashing mannequin heads is their hobby, we realise there is a less than 1% chance that the defendant was doing it for entertainment purposes.
Edit: There's actually a problem with this methodology because a number of people will pretend it's their hobby because they approve of the murderer. So instead there needs to be some other way to asses the popularity of smashing mannequin heads, with enough thought I'm sure we could find a way though. Maybe just ask people and explain it's to do with murder, but don't mention that the murder victim was a homeless guy
It might be circumstantial evidence but that is certainly still enough to judge him. If I investigated a room and saw corpses covered in blood, and there was some dude covered in their blood with a knife -- he might argue my evidence is just circumstantial too. Maybe he wasn't the killer, maybe he just came in and picked up the knife and cradled the corpses... this is actually a complicated scenario because he really could've been some passerby who just picked up the murder weapon. But I would bet my bottom dollar he would still get convicted on that merely circumstantial evidence, and in the absence of any other reasonable suspects it would probably be the right decision. In a million similar cases, maybe 5/10% of innocent people will get wrongly convicted, but it's probably worth it in order to lock up the 90/95% of actual murderers
This is true but trials or not, the world is scary. I find a world where someone who is almost 100% certainly a murderer can roam free to also be scary
They could probably match the imprint of the hammer to the wounds of the victims, DNA, etc
TheLetdown
Member
But he wasn't charged with the murders.
So, her point becomes that a $50,000 bail for a person who was charged with Carrying a Concealed Weapon, which appears to be misdemeanor in Nevada for a first offense, is way out of line and over the top.
These underlined parts are problematic to me.
You're both presenting very real, possible scenarios as to how this man could not be responsible for the 2 murders but still suggest that, without any other evidence, he would be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
LostCaress
Member
If I'm a contract killer and an undercover policeman pays me to kill someone (that doesn't exist) and I accept the job, what am I charged with?
If a court could determine that it was reasonable to assume that he thought that it was a person, what could he be charged with?
If a court could determine that it was reasonable to assume that he thought that it was a person, what could he be charged with?
Ninja Scooter
Member
Your stance is puzzling. No a person found in a room full of dead people and covered in their blood is not circumstantial evidence. In this case, as of now, they have nothing tying him to the murders. Maybe they will, and if he's guilty, hopefully they will, but based on what we know so far (and the fact that they haven't charged him yet if ever) they don't have that yet.
Also no, public surveys are not evidence of anything. That's crazy. You seem to have some odd perceptions of the criminal justice system.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
He was in possession of what is likely the murder weapon. That's physical evidence.
virtuoso88
Member
Aside from DNA/blood evidence on that hammer, that hammer may have a finger print on things it smashes like a gun shell.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Unless they can prove that specific hammer was used for the other crimes, it's not illegal to carry around a hammer.
off duty ninja
Member
This type of entrapment has been used many times to convict potential terrorists. The case I am most familiar with is a local one but this is just one of many instances like this.
Considering there are likely over 200,000 unsolved murders in the US alone since 1980 there are lots of 100% certain murderers walking around right now.
"within hours" .. holy shit I am surprised many more have not died. This dude was patrolling this area waiting for other people to sleep there.
Piece of shit.. I hope in some way they are able to confirm he is the guy. Even if he is released his face is out there, and they no doubt will be watching him so perhaps the killings will end either way if it was him.
Piece of shit.. I hope in some way they are able to confirm he is the guy. Even if he is released his face is out there, and they no doubt will be watching him so perhaps the killings will end either way if it was him.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
He says he kicked and then hit it. If he's shown on camera to not have kicked it before hitting it with the hammer that's at least one strike against his "I knew it was fake" bs.
Check his hammer, clothes, house, and vehicle for DNA from the previous murders and I can almost guarantee you'll find it. It can be surprisingly hard to get rid of all DNA evidence of it was a crime of opportunity like this one.
What a piece of shit.
Check his hammer, clothes, house, and vehicle for DNA from the previous murders and I can almost guarantee you'll find it. It can be surprisingly hard to get rid of all DNA evidence of it was a crime of opportunity like this one.
What a piece of shit.
Why not? Technically every situation has circumstances, so evidence is in every situation circumstantial xP
I could make the same argument about a dude covered in blood in a room of dead people. He could say he heard some shouting, walked in, felt shocked so didn't realise how bad it would look to touch the bodies and the weapon. There's nothing directly tying him to the murders expect for the fact he was at the scene of the crime, maybe the real culprit left him alive to take the fall. Maybe he was a passerby. To me, those explanations seem much more plausible then any non-criminal alternatives I can imagine for the guy who smashed the mannequin
I realise that surveys are not currently evidence of anything -- not in a court anyway. In general good surveys are evidence of whatever they are surveying, though. I meant it more as a question, should surveys be considered in courts? Because I think they should, they give you stats from which you can make inferences
What the fuck is this
Ninja Scooter
Member
Circumstantial and physical evidence are actual trial terms. You come across like you are trolling. Either that or woefully misinformed of how trials work.
Very helpful, thanks
Not trolling. I know circumstantial and direct evidence have specific meanings as trial terms but in common speech (in my experience) circumstantial evidence just means weak evidence. The point I was trying to make was that even strong evidence can be framed as weak -- thus the guy covered in blood example
Maybe this guy just played one too many horror games. He found a mannequin on his way home, he really likes hammers and he just so happened to have his hammer, and he really enjoys smashing things. Yeah, it's plausible that he's just innocent of vandalism. We have a quasi-reasonable doubt. So we'll just let him go free? A system like this would also let the guy covered in blood go free. You could even have video of a guy stabbing someone, but if the guy says he dodged a punch and acted in self-defense then hey -- we have a reasonable doubt so let him go free, why not? Don't want to risk a false positive
I'm fairly sure this isn't how the justice system works though. If a guy is found in a room of dead bodies covered in blood, and there's no other suspects, he'll go to prison -- right? Legit question since I'm not sure. It wouldn't matter to the jury if he says he just walked in
Ninja Scooter
Member
A guy covered in blood at the scene of a bunch of murders is not the same thing as what happened here. Not sure why you keep making that kind of comparison. One case has direct evidence tying someone to a crime/crime scene (ie the guy would at the very least have to explain why he's in a room full of dead bodies and covered on their blood). In the other case, as of now, there is nothing directly tying this dude to the two murders.
Even in the case of the guy covered in blood, that alone would not and should not be enough to convict someone. The prosecution needs to reasonably be able to prove the whens/whys/hows as the bar for proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is and should be incredibly high.
Even in the case of the guy covered in blood, that alone would not and should not be enough to convict someone. The prosecution needs to reasonably be able to prove the whens/whys/hows as the bar for proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is and should be incredibly high.
Is the entirety of the evidence that he was found in the room and had blood on him? Obviously not if that's the case. How is that even a serious question?
off duty ninja
Member
If the police have enough actual evidence then yes, the jury should convict them for murder. A guy covered in blood in a room full of dead bodies certainly doesn't equate to guilt. Maybe he was the next victim but the murderer fled? That is why it is up to the prosecution to show that the evidence collected by the police proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Straight Edge
Member
Should've been an undercover cop with a riot helmet covered with fabric to make it look soft.
What exactly qualifies as a direct tie to you? Because for me doing an act resembling murder, on a thing disguised as the recent murder victim, at a recent murder scene, with the same type of murder weapon -- this does qualify as a direct tie to the previous murders. It actually seems more direct a link to me than just being found at a murder scene moments (or minutes) after the murder.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Doing something that somebody else might have done earlier in the same place is not a direct tie. Most likely he did it, but "most likely" is not the standard for prosecution and conviction. They have to prove he committed those murders completely independent of him smashing some mannequin. Not sure what is so hard to understand about this.
The thought of being possibly accused of something you didn't commit and having people with the mindset of "I think he did it so he must have done it" on the jury is frightening.
The Albatross
Member
Yeah it's pretty similar, but there's a specific laws about soliciting sex from minors, even if you don't go through with the act, and the sex abusers get strung up on those charges. There aren't laws (that I know of) of intending to kill people who are in fact mannequins.
It's clear from our perspective, but difficult to convict, but I really think they have to nab him from evidence from the other crime scenes. Having watched my fair share of Forensic Files on HLN I'm confident they can get some evidence. If the hammer he used to smash the mannequin matches the wounds and skull fractures from the other victims, then they should have enough to get started and work a confession from him.
In fact... this thing with the hammer wound was almost an exact episode of Forensics Files.
This is uhhh.... a little bit of a stretch. Yes, um, you could make that argument, but... it wouldn't convince anybody.
When it's somethnig utterly common, like breathing, sure. When it's something ultra niche though, like smashing the head of a human shaped figure with a hammer, then I think that qualifies as a direct tie. Like if I'm invited to a friend's house, then I sit in their Dad's chair and breathe -- no direct connection. But if I sit in their Dad's chair and give the exact same speech their Dad had made that morning in that chair -- then there's only a very small chance it's a coincidence. Most likely I talked to their Dad or spy on them or something
Well, for me proof just generally means something is very likely true, there is no such thing as absolute proof
I agree, it's frightening. I think that's how juries work already though, right? If they think you did it, they convict you
It's a serious question because my intuition tells me that in many many cases (hard to conjure a percentage without info) the guy found at the murder scene will actually be the murderer. Like, maybe I should complicate the situation a little, say it's a Shawshank Redemption type of example. Guy is found next to the body of his wife and her lover, he says it wasn't him, he says he saw some dude running away from the scene. He picked up the gun in shock though and now his fingerprints are all over it. Do we buy his story or do we convict him? I convict him, because 99 times out of 100 I'll probably be right. If I don't convict him then every dude who murders their cheating spouse will get away scot free if they've seen a popular movie
DreadfulOmen
Member
that would be great. Fuck this guy.
Oh shit, I didn't know Trump's advisors posted here!
Ninja Scooter
Member
No that's not how juries are supposed to work. They should not convict on intuition, as you call it, or their gut feelings. They should convict because the prosecution lays out a case proving beyond any reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime. They aren't supposed to let their imaginations do the prosecutions job for them. I would hope people that think they way you do would be filtered out through the jury selection process.
TheLetdown
Member
Juries have to attest to their ability to be impartial. After that, convictions are based upon being beyond reasonable doubt. That part is important.
See, this is when circumstantial evidence becomes important. Motive, past behavior, mentioning something, etc. That's because you already have him at the scene of the crime at the time that the crime was committed (not something you have in our mannequin case), holding the murder weapon (again, not something we have.)
This isn't a scenario where we ask "where do we draw the line?" because you're able to obfuscate with some other what-if. And people like Ninja aren't looking to just muddy waters so nobody can get convicted of anything.
The issue is that you're willing to convict this person of murder solely on inference.
You should just understand that your thoughts on how things work have no relation to how they actually do work. Your reasoning conflicts with general principles of the justice system regarding a wide range of topics including evidence and guilt.
AtomskEater
Member
I've seen crime shows, so I know they can just touch a qtip to the sledgehammer and get DNA from all his victims.
This is really, really messed up and scary, though.
I know nothing of how anything works.
This is really, really messed up and scary, though.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
They have a face, prints and name. Gotta love the cops ingenuity. That's more than they had before. Maybe another of his crimes pops up. Or someone recognizes him. Or he cracks and confesses.
Can you absolutely 100% prove that you weren't adopted? The answer is no. Maybe you're living the Truman Show and when you ask the doctor for a DNA test he'll lie to you, but that doesn't matter. Most likely, you weren't adopted, and most likely is generally good enough
What exactly is a reasonable doubt? In my experience, everyone seems to have a different definition. Elon Musk seems to doubt we're living in base reality, is that unreasonable? If I'm on a jury and there's video of some guy robbing a store with a gun, but the defendant claims that despite the stunning likeness he is not actually the guy on the video, is it reasonable or unreasonable to doubt him? Dopplegangers do exist after all
Then please educate me sensei. What are the general principles of the justice system? (I'll assume you're talking about Western justice systems)
CertifiedFP
Member
More often than you think... Yes. That and the broadcasting apparently creates a bit of challenge for the prosecution in cases caught by To Catch a Predator.
But the public outing and the fact that the cops are going to be watching the guy who got caught is something that works wonders.
- Status