BREAKING NEWS: David Swain Wins Appeal Against Murder Conviction

[txaggie08]

So the civil verdict would be enough of an indication for you to make him your primary suspect

I would hope that the initial investigation would occur before a civil award was made or did you only read out of that what you wanted? He would have been under suspicion solely because of the circumstances....

And yes, through more than the occasional anecdotal evidence(I'm not going to do a detailed analysis of civil dispositions in the US for you) I have very little faith in a civil system that typically awards the biggest sum to the party with the most expensive lawyers. If you want to condemn a man because he fits the "best suspect" mold you see on tv cop dramas, and was assessed damages(note, he was not "convicted" in a civil court) in a civil court, i sincerely hope you never serve on a criminal jury, nor are accused of any crime....

 

[Thalassamania]

This post fascinates me. The fact that nobody picked up on it is more so. …….”The law is not a world of science and facts”….. The facts part especially. Thal, with your permission I’d like to add that to my signature as one of the most inane things I’ve seen posted on SB. Law not a world or facts? Any attorneys want to enlighten me on this perspective?

I know science, and as a result I know facts, the law rarely (if ever) rises to the level required by science to actually prove something. Often as not it hinges on the psychology of of those involved, the quality of the presentation and the ability of the attorneys to make their case, which should never be confused with a scientific proof, relying as is does on the manipulation of the jury rather than the dispassionate presentation of "facts" for the jury's objective consideration.

 

[Ayisha]

Is this the case that was on either 48 hours or 60 minutes a year or two ago?

Yes, there was a show about this case in the last year or so. It was referenced in the original thread about this incident with screen shots from the show and lots of commentary.

There was also a show in the same time frame about another scuba death, that of Tina Watson on her honeymoon in Australia. Lots of info on a couple of threads on that case as well.

 

[Ayisha]

Your penchant for hyperbole never ceases to amaze me.

And it works every time, doesn't it? Some of you can be predicted to be all over it hook, line and sinker. Excellent.

 

[Dadvocate]

Vladimir

So the civil verdict would be enough of an indication for you to make him your primary suspect, but it's not enough of an indication for me to form a preliminary opinion for the purposes of an internet discussion. Got it.

Your own language is betraying you at this point as your misrepresentations abound.

So what are the significant differences between your “preliminary opinion” and indicative yet still lacking evidence?
Please show where anyone has told you that you are not allowed to form an opinion based on the civil suit? What has transpired is that you have been called on your justifications for this said opinion and how these types of opinion mean little when it comes down to proving actual guilt.

Apparently your purpose in this discussion is to hold onto the point that since Swain lost a civil lawsuit, this should be grounds for considering him a primary suspect in a criminal investigation.

Txaggie’s very clearly written and supported explanation of the actual process of civil litigation in the US, replete with his explanations of the reservations he has about this litigious system based on his professional opinion, only go to support the idea that—pay attention here please—civil outcomes whether you view them as indicative of guilt or not, don’t begin to establish proof of anything at all in the context of a criminal matter. This is the only point that matters, not whether or not you should be able to express an opinion about something in an Internet forum.

To drive the point home since you place such a high degree of credence in the jury system. If you were to utter the words “I think he could be guilty because I read about him losing a civil law suit in Rhode Island” in the voi dire process in a criminal trial, you would more than likely be tossed off the jury immediately thereafter. Why? Because a “preliminary opinion” of this sort would be viewed as prejudicial.

Far better in txaggie’s opinion—again pay close attention— the relevant investigation into the indications of guilt ought to take place when an incident originally occurs, thus making criminal prosecution better as a precursor to civil litigation and not the other way around.

It seems to be completely lost on you that txaggie could agree with you 100% and claim that he feels Swain is guilty and still take you to task on each and every point he already has. One can believe Swain is guilty and still feel that it has not been proven in court and that the system on the whole ought to work better to achieve that end. I am glad there are professionals like txaggie who actually understand the difference, not to mention honor the very important distinctions in practice.

Establishing a legitimate criminal link and proving it are matters that go beyond mere suspicion. Thank goodness this aspect of the law in the western world still exists, though it has holes in it even at the criminal level.

Regarding your repeated claim that you should be able to come to an opinion on this matter in a euphemistically repulsive “Internet discussion”, I only have this to add.

If you are unable to express your ideas in an Internet forum with any degree of consistency, why is it that you feel you would be able to do it anywhere else? The same rules of logic and definition apply with these conceptions once one steps away from the computer. We could ostensibly be having this discourse over a few beers and cigars while playing an all night Texas Hold ‘Em game. The rules still apply when one wants to make a point and subject it to the opinions of others.

Perhaps we are all missing the point that has been staring us in the face for a while now. Your disclaimer below does indeed say that…

I do not pretend to have any facts to offer. Much of what is posted here is in jest, and is not intended to be taken seriously

.

So maybe you are playing the devil’s advocate here? It would be nice if you at least gave the devil his fair due.

Cheers!

 

[Dadvocate]

And it works every time, doesn't it? Some of you can be predicted to be all over it hook, line and sinker. Excellent.

"All over it". "Excellent". Really?

What a lovely accomplishment. Exaggerate the circumstances of a given subject or use exaggeration to mask what you actually feel as a tool to get others to call you on it repeatedly.

I’ll grant you this. It is an unorthodox strategy.

To what end? Only you would know. Perhaps that is the point you are gleefully winning.

Cheers!

 

[vladimir]

Apparently your purpose in this discussion is to hold onto the point that since Swain lost a civil lawsuit, this should be grounds for considering him a primary suspect in a criminal investigation.

You wrote a lot based largely on this faulty premise. In one of my early posts in this thread I said David Swain should be free. I never suggested that the burden of proof was met to support a determination of criminal guilt, or even an indictment in a criminal case. You and the policeman are so anxious to share your insight into the failings of the civil justice system that you are missing my point, which I will repeat: in my opinion, David Swain drowned his wife. Just as I form opinions on a myriad of different things, this one is based only on an indication. One objective indication. If you disagree that the determination of a jury in a civil trial is generally an objective indication, or that the determination of this particular jury was an objective indication, please feel free (and there's every indication that you do) to write a treatise on the subject. I will read it with an open mind, though I'm probably done responding.

My opinion on David Swain's guilt or innocence is of no practical importance.

 

[AfterDark]

I know science, and as a result I know facts, the law rarely (if ever) rises to the level required by science to actually prove something. Often as not it hinges on the psychology of of those involved, the quality of the presentation and the ability of the attorneys to make their case, which should never be confused with a scientific proof, relying as is does on the manipulation of the jury rather than the dispassionate presentation of "facts" for the jury's objective consideration.

My point had nothing to do with science/facts in the "world of law" you that made that connection. My point was as a man who claims to live in a world of science and facts you seem to have formed an opinion with very few facts at hand. It seems to me you are using more emotion than facts to form your opinion. You have that right and that's fine. It just appears inconsistent to me. Facts don't always come from science. There are facts in any trial having nothing to do with science. Example, it is a fact that Swain and Shelly went diving in the BVI. No science there just a fact. To say facts are not in the "world of law" because ..the law rarely (if ever) rises to the level required by science to actually prove something.
I just don't know what to make of that?

 

[Dadvocate]

Vladimir

On my use of the word investigation.

You wrote a lot based largely on this faulty premise.

You are correct here. I worded this poorly. I meant to say that you feel determining his guilt personally is acceptable.

My opinion on David Swain's guilt or innocence is of no practical importance.

That much has never been in dispute.

I have already conceded that you have the right to form an opinion about the innocence or guilt of Swain based on whatever you like. I haven’t confused a thing here.

The rest…

And it is all well and good that you allow yourself the levity to form opinions on such flimsy considerations. But please don’t pretend for a moment that this conclusion of yours in any way meets “objective” criteria, especially when it has been pointed out to you that civil cases hold no bearing in criminal cases in practical terms.

It is a subjective feeling based on whatever biases you have going in. I have them too, admittedly, but the difference is that I do indeed consider what civil lawsuits are and I also looked through several reports related to this case when it first came out. That said, I still have no idea if he is innocent or guilty of committing this crime because it is impossible to come to an informed opinion based solely on such considerations. Or better, I feel this is the case where you do not. Regardless of what hook you choose to hang your foregone conclusions on, the only effectively reasonable position to hold on his actual guilt given our cyber proximity to the evidence in this case is “I don’t know”.

You don’t seem to be saying that he should go free despite his guilt having been proven (to you), so this must in some way be an indication that regardless of the value you place on the civil “conviction” in RI, you understand that criminal culpability hasn’t been met in this case. This has been the point all along. What has transpired in the interim is a conversation asking you to attempt to support your opinion. How or even if you support that opinion is still irrelevant.

For all practical purposes, you may as well be saying your belief in this matter is because the tea leaves you read at the bottom of your cup say he is guilty or that god came to you in an apparition and told you so. This and “Swain should go free” are tantamount to the same thing in the long run. That someone might call you on the pitfalls of tying subjective belief in innocence or guilt to tealeaves and ghostly god images would in essence follow the same intellectual course.

This position has been clear from the beginning. No misunderstandings whatsoever.

Cheers!

 

[SadiesMom]

My opinion on David Swain's guilt or innocence is of no practical importance.

I would've left out the word "practical".....