Post by Swimmy on Feb 6, 2008 23:12:33 GMT -5
You made a very good point. I was not trying to imply that Natalie's mother was a bad mother or that she failed as a parent. I still believe that a high school graduation present of such extravagance was unnecessary and uncalled for. But I come from a family of limited financial means. Such travel luxuries were not available to our family. Our idea of a vacation was spending a weekend at Six Flags Darien Lake every other summer. This past summer, my vacation consisted of driving home from Michigan to visit my parents for a weekend. It wasn't until my second year of law school that I took a real vacation. I was stupid (stupid in the sense that I should have saved it to pay back instead of owing it later) and used my excess loan monies to fund it, my parents didn't push a penny my way. As well they should not have.
As for the confession, it is the judge's call whether to admit the evidence. As to the kid's credibility, that would be for a jury to decide. If it was an American court, the judge would probably allow the tape into evidence and instruct the jury that they do not have to believe the kid's taped confession. The jury is free to believe it or disregard it based on the rest of the evidence.
I don't know if Aruba has a double jeopardy provision like the U.S. does. Was the kid tried before? I was not aware that he was. But if he was, and was acquitted for want of evidence, and Aruba has a double jeopardy clause, then no he would not be tried again.
As for my reference to Scott Peterson, I was trying to explain that you don't need the body to convict. There was enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer that scott killed his wife. In the U.S., a defendant cannot be convicted on his confession alone, there must be some corroborating evidence, e.g. he was the last person to see her alive. Note, that example alone would not be enough, it's just an example of some of the evidence that would tend to corroborate the confession. All that presumes that a jury would believe the confession's veracity. In this case, a conviction depends on the rest of the evidence surrounding her death.
As for the confession, it is the judge's call whether to admit the evidence. As to the kid's credibility, that would be for a jury to decide. If it was an American court, the judge would probably allow the tape into evidence and instruct the jury that they do not have to believe the kid's taped confession. The jury is free to believe it or disregard it based on the rest of the evidence.
I don't know if Aruba has a double jeopardy provision like the U.S. does. Was the kid tried before? I was not aware that he was. But if he was, and was acquitted for want of evidence, and Aruba has a double jeopardy clause, then no he would not be tried again.
As for my reference to Scott Peterson, I was trying to explain that you don't need the body to convict. There was enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer that scott killed his wife. In the U.S., a defendant cannot be convicted on his confession alone, there must be some corroborating evidence, e.g. he was the last person to see her alive. Note, that example alone would not be enough, it's just an example of some of the evidence that would tend to corroborate the confession. All that presumes that a jury would believe the confession's veracity. In this case, a conviction depends on the rest of the evidence surrounding her death.
Shit, I just remembered, I gave up swearing for lent.