Are Some Crimes So Heinous That Guilty Verdicts At The Trials Of The Accused Are Foregone Conclusions?

[BigT65]

Having recently watched a documentary about and footage of the Trial of Adolf Eichmann and although I have no doubt of his guilt. Because of the heinous nature of the holocaust and the obvious and understandable emotions of the victims and the mountain of evidence the verdict was a foregone conclusion. This led me to wonder if the trial of any one accused of a crime of such henousness and noteriety is ever going to be anything but a foregone conclusion? N.B. I am not looking to debate the holocaust

[bednobs]

i think the apposite comment in your post is " the mountain of evidence" I dont think that any trials can be a foregone conclusion without that, no matter what they are for. I'm talking of course of british trials,

[woofgang]

Are you sure that you know what "heinous" means?

[bednobs]

me?

[ChillDoubt]

I don't know about 'foregone conclusions' but I'm intrigued as to what the supposed defence would be backed by 'mountains of evidence' and charges of mass murder of millions on an industrial/biblical scale.

Just sayin'.

[woofgang]

no bedknobs, the OP

[-Talbot-]

What is wrong with 'Heinous'?

[bednobs]

i was thinking that - it makes perfect sense in the context of the q (to me at least)
Are you sure YOU know what it means woofy?

[woofgang]

"heinous" means utterly odious and wicked.....so you can have a heinous crime with no evidence of who committed it......what makes a verdict a foregone conclusion is not the heinousness (is that a word?) of the crime but the weight and veracity of the evidence.

[Guilbert53]

At the Nurenburg trials after the war (of mostly German Nazi high ranking members) three of the people were found not guilty when you would have thought they were all guilty.

So there is no such thing as a foregone conclusion.

I read a book about Charles Manson many years ago and while it was "obvious" that he and his tribe had done the murders the prosecution had to PROVE it which is a very different thing from just thinking you know they were guilty.

[Old_Geezer]

Woofgang @ 22:11 sums up what I intended to put.
So the answer to the OP question is "No".

[woofgang]

And dividing the heiniosity of the crime away from the strength of the evidence is IMPORTANT. Justice isn't served by saying to an accused "The crime that you are accused of is so terrible that we aren't going to give you a fair trial and require proof that you did it."

[BigT65]

Wasn't looking for a semantics lecture. Until D.N.A. profiling the majority evidence in trials was circumstantial which is as unreliable as statistical extrapolation

[woofgang]

"This led me to wonder if the trial of any one accused of a crime of such henousness and noteriety is ever going to be anything but a foregone conclusion?"
you asked this question and I answered. Its an important part of the justice that the severity of the crime should have no effect on the requirement for solid evidence. My answer is still the same. It seemed to me that the answer was so evident that I wondered if you had mean heinous.

[mushroom25]

chilldoubt, i think the only possible defence in the face of "mountains of evidence", would be "the shaggy defence".

.....just sayin', like.....

[BigT65]

Separation is technically correct but you are ignoring the effect of human emotions of the jury. No case is ever decided in a vacuum

[woofgang]

So you are asking if its possible to have a fair trial? I think Guilbert53 has answered that question.

[BigT65]

No i was asking exactly what i asked your just trying to pick a fight

[woofgang]

ok bored now

[Jackdaw33]

Adolf Eichmann remains the only person ever to have been executed in the state of Israel. I remember the case vividly as a young lad. He was kidnapped in Argentina by Israeli agents and flown to Israel to stand trial. Having said that, I am in no way saying he was not guilty.