An I missing something? Isn't the POINT of a trial before one's peers that a jury listens to testimony and weighs evidence to reach a conclusion about guilt? Beyond a reasonable doubt... not beyond all doubt. Because even if a person were standing gun in hand over the body of a shot victim in front of twenty witnesses, it's still possible that he didn't do it. Maybe when all twenty witnesses blinked in unison the actual shooter ran up grabbed the gun, shot it, gave it back and ran off. It's just not probable. So to me, of course, it's possible that Barry killed Suzanne, it's possible that someone else did, it's possible that Suzanne's not even dead, it's just that, of those three possibilities, one is far and away more probable.
So am I to understand that Barry got bail because of improbable possibilities?
So the Judge felt obligated to give bail because he didn't feel the Prosecution met the burden, even after he carefully laid out all the reasons why the charges fit?
Isn't it always the case that a jury can find otherwise? Why else have juries?
I'm really trying to understand.
As a judge is required to give deference to the Prosecution (I hope I'm wording that correctly), was this Judge supposed to determine whether bail was warranted, starting from a position of no bail and defending it or was he to determine bail, starting from a position of bail and eliminating it? You see my distinction?
Maybe I'm looking at it backwards or undervaluing different standards for each, but TO ME, it seems like the more challenging case to make is for Murder 1, but once made, the decision for no bail should follow easily. No?
Again, what I hear is: it's appropriate, per the Judge, for the State to charge Barry with M1, but he's granting Barry bail because there remains the possibility that b. or c. occurred and a jury might find him not guilty.
But isn't that always the case? In every case? Or why have juries???? The Judge said this wasn't a mini trial! The State did not make their case for or before a jury.
What could or should the Prosecution have done to keep Barry held in?
He is IMO a flight risk, a risk to family and witnesses (as noted by multiple restraining orders), Barry has proven himself to be above the law, Barry has both means and motive to do harm...
Blast it. I wish the rule was No body, no bail.
Trying really hard right now to appreciate the protections in the Constitution... because it should be hard to remove someone's freedom prior to conviction.
I just don't like it right now.
JMO