forums

Bryan Pata case update - upcoming bond hearing for Jones

TheOriginalCane said:
Wrong. The cell phone triangulation directly rebuts his claim of being at home that evening. It would be a circumstantial evidence thing if they were trying to establish something, such as "hey we are trying to prove you were here at X location", but it is a powerful piece of rebuttal evidence to a 15-year-long story as to where Jones was at the time the crime was committed (i.e., "you said you were at X location, but this evidence says that you were not, in fact, at that location").

As for the eyewitness testimony, sure. But, again, it is ALSO rebuttal of a long-standing "alibi" story. I don't think anyone has ever disputed the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to the actual crime itself. However, multiple pieces of evidence that contradict a 15-year old story about how he could not possibly have been at the scene of the crime? That is the type of stuff that can flip a jury to guilty. Not always, but it has been known to happen.

And I don't care if a lawyer can "paint reasonable doubt", the jury has to conclude that there is reasonable doubt. Some do, some don't. Lots of defense attorneys like to claim that they established reasonable doubt, but they don't unless the jury agrees. The jury, in and of itself, is very difficult to predict unless you've been in the courtroom during voir dire and the case itself, to evaluate and predict how the jury is reacting to certain evidence and arguments.

Non-lawyers often tend to make too much of words like "circumstantial" and "hearsay" and "reasonable doubt". Both circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence are valid forms of evidence, and both have there inherent challenges and limitations. Plenty of people have been convicted based solely on circumstantial and/or hearsay evidence. This isn't Perry Mason, where a direct eyewitness appears at the last minute, or the "real killer" breaks down and confesses on the stand.
Click to expand...
Good points. It’s a tough case for the State but not impossible. It would really be nice to have that one strong piece of direct evidence. That Jones is talking about the case is ridiculous.
 
Advertisement
Goulds Cane said:
Rashaun is a fellow Cane so I'm not gonna rush to throw him under the bus. Free him if he's innocent. My cousin is doing 60 years in Alabama for a crime he didn't commit. Most importantly, RIP Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...

I hear ya bt its not totally out of the realm of possibility
 
TheOriginalCane said:
1 through 6 may all be true.

But most jurors need to be spoon-fed, and tend to spit out their peas and carrots.

It's still going to be challenging to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
Yep, All 12 jurors must be convinced beyond any “reasonable doubt”. That’s a big burden for the State. I hope for the sake of the Pata family and Justice they make the case!
 
Advertisement
Our justice system is not about quilt or innocence.
It is all about winning and losing. Regardless of evidence, the quilty go free and the innocent are behind bars.
 
Advertisement
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...
Casey Anthony and Jose Baez would like to have a word with you.
 
P-Tizzle said:
flesh that out for me. Why should she have been found guilty of murder?
Click to expand...

The chances of convicting someone of murder that has been involved in a high profile murder case is slim to none when that case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Just ask Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson. Both of whom I think committed murder but the state botched the investigation in both cases if you ask me.

If find it extremely hard to believe the state is going to get a guilty verdict in the current Pata case 15 years after the fact. Especially when their case is based on circumstantial evidence.

I think the states best chance for conviction in the Pata case is to get some kind of confession. Which I believe they tried to get from Jones and failed with the recent arrest. Just my 3 cents .
 
Advertisement
P-Tizzle said:
1. An eyewitness places Jones at the scene of the crime.

2. Jones has a motive to kill Pata.

3. Other witnesses testify that Jones possessed the type of gun that was used to kill Pata.

4. Jones doesn't have an alibi for the night of Pata's murder.

5. Witnesses claim that Jones has threatened Pata's life on several occasions.

6. Phone records provide evidence that Jones lied about his whereabouts and activities on the night Pata was murdered. And the records can place him at or near the scene of Pata's murder.

Jones is going to prison for the murder of Bryan Pata.
Click to expand...

The court of public opinion is often vastly different than what goes on inside the courthouse.
 
insaneinthecane said:
The chances of convicting someone of murder that has been involved in a high profile murder case is slim to none when that case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Just ask Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson. Both of whom I think committed murder but the state botched the investigation in both cases if you ask me.

If find it extremely hard to believe the state is going to get a guilty verdict in the current Pata case 15 years after the fact. Especially when their case is based on circumstantial evidence.

I think the states best chance for conviction in the Pata case is to get some kind of confession. Which I believe they tried to get from Jones and failed with the recent arrest. Just my 3 cents .
Click to expand...


Please stop this.

Neither of those cases were based "solely" on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, both of those cases involved "alibis" that were completely bogus. Has anyone ever located the fake Hispanic nanny with whom Casey Anthony entrusted her child? Has OJ ever searched for, let alone CAUGHT, the "real killers"?

The telling part of your analysis is that you qualify it by saying "high profile murder case". In essence, you are acknowledging that "normal" killers, who do not have overpaid dream teams, can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, which says more about legal machinations than it does the "quality" of evidence (and/or the use and persuasiveness of circumstantial evidence).

As for "the state botched the investigation", that is just a blanket excuse when the killer goes free, and ignores the differential in the facts of the case. With OJ, yes, police were on the scene very rapidly, and they DID mishandle some of the evidence. But OJ also flew to another city, which complicated the ability to question him immediately, as well as the search for the murder weapon. In the Casey Anthony case, her daughter was not reported missing for THIRTY-ONE days. There is a succesful TV series that documents murder investigations called The First 48, because most murder cases are solved within the first 48 hours. After that...the collection of evidence becomes much more challenging.
 
Advertisement
Somebody said he owned the same type of gun used in the murder ... what about a ballistics match? Was the bullet recovered? That would seem to eliminate any doubt.
 
Rickd said:
Somebody said he owned the same type of gun used in the murder ... what about a ballistics match? Was the bullet recovered? That would seem to eliminate any doubt.
Click to expand...


Not sure that the actual gun was ever recovered, which is a big problem when a case is slow to develop. Plenty of time for a person to dispose of the murder weapon.
 
Jury of your peers!!! They’re could be 12 gaytes on the jury that’s terrifying. Casey Anthony was a slam dunk conviction and she’s roaming freely. Praying for Justice for Mr. Pata but time will tell I’m not that optimistic.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top