Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
No one is assuming anything. However, we can use some common sense about it.
|
I have a bit more time now, so am just curious here. What is truly fundamentally different between "assuming anything" and "using common sense"? In this context, it seems like they're the same thing? Then you go onto this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Common sense is knowing the stats, knowing how juries work, knowing the criminal law standard, knowing that any complainant has to put herself through a real wringer to pursue charges and that sexual assault in a private setting is incredibly hard to prove.
The jury made a finding based on an almost impossible standard to meet in a he said/she said case. They may well believe he did it.
|
Well, knowing all of those things you list can obviously still lead to assumptions
that are wrong and based on events that
did not happen. That's why we have this process and system in place, and why simple common sense is not the arbiter of justice.
Also, there are good reasons why a jury has to make a finding on an "almost impossible standard to meet", don't you think? This is what I meant when I said I was surprised a lawyer would state this almost as if it is a bad thing (or, perhaps that is not what you meant and this could be my misinterpretation of what you're trying to convey in which case, apologies).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
I am suggesting, based on stats, the extremely low percentages of false accusations, and how juries work, yeah, he probably did.
|
Here you are making a claim that he still performed the act, which is certainly possible. However, we now have more information than we did before the trial and which does provide a much more robust defense of Virtanen and certainly questions the authenticity of the claim. Yet in the face of this, you still make this claim. This is what I find surprising coming from a lawyer. Honestly, I don't even mean this comment as an insult but I am honestly just surprised a lawyer would carry this opinion based on your extensive knowledge of the law (not being sarcastic here, I know you know the law).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
No one is complaining about the verdict. And no one is saying “it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on”. He gets to go free. That’s what it’s worth. What I’m saying is that (a) it doesn’t mean innocent and (b) based on a whole lot of factors there’s a decent chance he did it. Hell, she could still quite conceivably win a civil case with the court saying it’s more likely than not that he assaulted her. See Simpson, OJ.
|
I can agree with the bolded part and it likely is worth her pursuing same but I personally think the balance of the original claim and whole paradigm as to whether or not Virtanen is "innocent" is completely shifted with this decision but hey, maybe that's just me I guess or maybe I am not understanding something.