- This topic has 65 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Even if it is ‘likely’ or ‘probable’ that she committed the murder (which I’m not even saying that much is the case), she must be acquitted. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the Torah standard of proof required in a beis din case is beyond a shadow of doubt.
And the Torah standard of proof required in a beis din case is beyond a shadow of doubt.
No, Joe. The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. It has nothing to do with how much they are believable; it is a din.
popa: Every Dayan voting to convict MUST find the eidim CREDIBLE and believe in the defendant’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Interesting. Where do you get that from?
It’s Dayanus 101.
It’s Dayanus 101.
I see. You made it up. Nice.
(Now, even if you find a source that it is true, we’ll still know you originally made it up.)
Pac-man; “It’s Dayanus 101”. It might be. It might even be common sense 101. But, can you cite a source for that standard in Talmud Bavli or Yerushalmi?
popa: When you’re a Dayan, if two guys off the street testify their next door neighbor committed a murder, and they crossed all their t’s and dotted all their i’s, and worked out their story together straight as an arrow, but you smell a rat but can’t figure out a disproof to the witnesses, you will behead the accused?
Well, there is a concept of ??? ?????, which I saw in choshen mishpat and applies to ??????, which is that if the dayanim see that there are tricks going on, they can refuse to judge the case. There may be a similar idea for ?????.
However, that is a far cry from needing to be sure the eidim are telling the truth. You simply need the lack of seeing that they are playing tricks.
In any event, in the case at hand 1) there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt, even if one thinks there was probable proof 2) in beis din valid truthful eyewitnesses constitutes proof beyond a shadow of doubt 3) in this case there were no witnesses.
Therefore, be it resolved, the defendent Casey Anthony was rightfully acquitted in the eye of the law, both Torah and American.
“The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. “
Actually for a gentile court it is one witness of any type. See Sanhedrin 57a. But even that standard was not met in this case.
“The torah standard is two witnesses who are not psulei eidus. “
Actually for a gentile court it is one witness of any type. See Sanhedrin 57a. But even that standard was not met in this case.
Yes that is so, we have discussed. I thought he was referring to what it would be in our din for us.
Health – “She is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.”
You keep on saying that but there is no evidence at all that anyone did anything; only that Casey is an idiot.
Regarding your previous post; as much as we want to believe them, police are known to lie on the stand.
While Bais Din does a drisha v’chakira of the eidim to assure valid testimony; this does not rule out false witnesses.
If you work with a woman, and she tells you her washing machine broke. Might you give her advice on who she can call, or what to do?
Now lets suppose she asks you how much makeup you think is appropriate for her to wear, or some other questions portaining to dress, that I won’t even mention, even though I can find it on threads.
Do you see a difference, or it’s all the same to you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.