What was confusing in his confession was that he never admitted that he was in charge and he was responsible for war crimes. He quoted General Curtis Le May telling him that if they lost the war they would have been both judged for war crimes they committed. He also questioned, what is the difference between the war crime offender who won a war and who lost a war? In that unanswered question, one could find moral regret for what McNamara was part. Even more, his voice struggles with horrible facts
The Hillside Strangler's mental illness 2 The hillside strangler killings involved the suspects of Kenneth bianchi and Angelo Bono. It can be questioned if Kenneth actually committed the murders, it may have been Angelo committing the killing and Kenneth just aiding him in the process. During trail Kenneth claimed to have dissociative identity disorder, an illness where there are multiple personalities inside your brain and your primary personality has no idea that they are existent. Kenneth was found to not have this illness after examination but was the examination correct with its findings. Kenneth claimed to have been lying about having the illness after
16, the jury had men dressed in the Cunningham’s formal wear, hinting that the men whom tried to kill the defendant Tom the night before, was in the jury. This just further proves my thoughts, because those that hate you, and or dislike you, will judge you with false accusations. Like Atticus( Scouts father) had once said “the court is as equal as its jury”. Bias can cause many uproars in the court, but a lack of evidence can cause the case to become confusing. Generally evidence is what sets the difference between a wide open case and a closed off one.
(Keene) B. Whether from evidence or a personal hunch, some interrogators interview suspects as if they are guilty, which causes an incorrect interrogation that leads to extensive stress and pressure. C. But if the investigator approaches the interrogation believing the detainee is guilty, the ensuing interrogation is more pressure-filled and coercive. This results in the innocent detainee (who is likely to waive their rights) being at increased risk for false confession due to the pressure of the interrogation process. (Keene) D.
Piette had been presented critical evidence in the case that clearly declared his client to be guilty, however, instead of debating he sat quietly and observed. Every time the judge would question the defense comments on the presented evidence, Piette would simply say that his client took no side. Despite what Lieutenant Piette was thinking, he knew that it would be extremely dangerous to the case if he began to debate. Piette’s strategy cause yet again more controversy in the legal field. An Air Force major that was in the court believed that Piette’s strategy was immodest.
As I write this blog, I have so many mixed emotions, but mostly it 's sadness and betrayal. The constant subject line of Brooks ' cancer, his choice of treatment, and if he was 'faking ' it or not has gotten out of control. My stance is I do not believe he faked cancer, as there are way too many people involved, way too many doctor visits and way too many doctor reports which would be very difficult to falsify. OK! Magazine shared that Brooks Ayers actually just won a defamation case in court.
Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts.
In the book “To Kill A Mockingbird”, by Harper Lee and the short story, “Only the Accused were Innocent”, by David Oshinsky, have many similarities. Two of these similarities that were important were that both judges were obviously disagreed or were troubled by the verdict and that both of the ladies that accused these men of raped to hide there own guilt. In the article “Only the Accused Were Innocent”,when the jury of the scottsboro trial had made their decision on the verdict the judge seemed to disagree with it, “But Horton, a wealthy landowner with deep antebellum roots in Alabama, was clearly troubled by the case”(Oshinsky). In “To Kill A Mockingbird” when judge Taylor finds out the verdict, he seems confused, “Judge Taylor was something.
Groups B and E went at each other in their second debate about whether or not Euphiletus was a guilty man or not for killing Eratosthenes, the man who was sleeping with his wife. Group B’s job was to defend Euphiletus, while Group E on the other hand found him guilty in their arguments. Both logos and pathos were used heavily by both sides of the debate; however, when ethos was used, it was very effective. Group B, the first to debate, started out with Elatos (Elicia). Elatos was a lower middle class man who did not have much ethos.
He said that it is impossible for him to declare Pi innocent.The more he examines this case and think about it, the more deeply he become involved and making his mind entangled.He found that every reason to declare him innocent was balanced by a reason to prove him guilty. He withdraws from the case making no decision. Justice Keen He puts two questions before the Court. First that whether executive clemency should be extended to these defendants if the conviction is affirmed and second that of deciding whether what these men did was "right" or "wrong," "wicked" or "good." He says "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.