Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
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...
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).
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).
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.
|
The paradigm has not shifted that much really. Civil trials in Canada are almost exclusively done without a jury. So there’s not much concern that a judge alone civil trial doesn’t understand that the criminal verdict doesn’t have a whole lot of impact legally, given the standard of proof. Given the issues in this kind of a case, a jury almost was forced to come to an acquittal (though it seems like they had some difficulty).
I don’t think his case was assisted much by the trial. It wasn’t so much a robust defence as a standard one intended to raise a doubt.