[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
[B]Let's not forget that he had an affair and lied about it.

 

Swimming will bleach your hair and beard due to the chlorine in pool water. If you have blond hair it will tint it slightly green. Sea water will just bleach it period.

Is circumstantial evidence enough to convict someone? I thought it had to be 'beyond all reasonable doubt'?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Muz
[B]Swimming will bleach your hair and beard due to the chlorine in

 

Could you imagine anything worse than 6 months of jury service, especially if you were sequestered? You'd probably return a guilty verdict on your own mother just to get it over with.

 

I agree with MF - this guy gives off a bad vibe....

Muz - i would agree except, I served for 5 non consecutive days, so it was like two weeks, and the plaintiff was such a BEOTCH, that it pleased us all to no end to deny her what she so badly wanted...... Of course that wasn't 6 months, but we were all sucked into the drama. It's funny that this stuff happens in real life. and scary.

 

I believe that something like 70% of spousal deaths involve the spouse that remains alive. That's an awfully high number.

I said I would wait to hear the evidence (because that's fair) but I think a lot of small things are adding up to one big thing.

That said, the media loves to jump all over things. If my wife went missing and then found dead and I had all my debts erased (we have insurance on all of them to cover spousal death), they'd probably say the same about me.

Regarding his insurance policy, I don't see that as an issue. I'll probably take out an insurance policy soon as well (my wife is pregnant) since I will soon have two people to take care of, not one, and I'd hate for either my wife or I to have to raise a kid alone and worry about money for the foreseeable future. That's smart, not convicting...

That said, he didn't act very concerned over her death and he did sell the vehicle that could have been used to transport her, correct? That's awfully....weird.

Whatever. It'll be interesting, but I think the media will irreparably twist it to make him appear guilty.

 

P.S. I find it disturbing that so many people think he's guilty and yet very little evidence has been presented EXCEPT that which the media has informed us of. Since when has the media been that trustworthy?

 

He is just as guilty as O.J. but do to our crap justice system he'll probably walk.

 

I'm at a loss to see the use of this poll. If he killed them, he's guilty; if he didn't, he's not. The opinion of the public in general or a handful of S2000 enthusiasts in particular doesn't weigh in. Note, too, that whether he's convicted of their murders or not also has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. People, by the way, are not "innocent until proven guilty." They are, in the US justice system, legally to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They are, in fact, innocent or guilty based on their previous behavior, not based on what is proven in court. There are other justice systems in which the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent--this holds true frequently in tax court.

Finally, in the US judicial system, while direct evidence is preferable to secure a conviction, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient.

 

He took out life insurance on her and she didn't approve or sign.
He's guilty of something. Not sure of what yet. Have to see and hear the evidence.