Reggie did nothing wrong. He was a shy guy, but harbored no ill will towards anyone and just had trouble figuring out how to do or say the right things in the right social situations because it didn't come natural to him. His expressionless face while facing the jury of his peers betrayed the sense great sense of fear that welled within him. "Reginald," the prosecutor said, "we have a preponderance of evidence to prove that you are the one that murdered Ms. Keel. You, that hateful soul. Always the queit ones who are up to no good. Even now, as I point out your heinous crime, you show little remorse. No protest. Nothing." Reginald swallowed and continued to keep as much of his composure as he could. Inside, he had frozen, helpless. On the outside, to the discerning observer, one could notice a slight trembling on his form. Had Reginald managed to stumble upon information that would have informed him about human biases, he would likely be able to wage a more appropriate response. Anger and silence are the two responses that people most perceive to be indicators of guilt, even though the truth is just the opposite (https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/signs-of-guilt/). Several members of the jury glanced more closely at the innocent man, now unsure of how to respond.
The evidence was presented. Reggie and Eve, the victim, were coworkers. He had tried courting her several times, and his advances were usually rejected. Witnesses had attested to this workplace dynamic, and so a potential motive was established. Of course, simply being a rejected suitor would hardly be motive for someone to behave in such a rash manner, but there was more. Reggie couldn't help another of the human biases that were working against him here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/progress-notes/202404/introverts-arent-who-you-think-they-are
Put plainly, his pensive nature was seen as creepy. Another piece of evidence that had been presented was the state of the body: it had been dismembered and disfigured when it was discovered discarded in trash bags along the side of the highway. Reggie just happened to be the maintenance person at the tech firm where Eve played the role of secretary. He had a detailed knowledge of power tools and a breadth of knowledge on a great many subjects. Most people did not know him well, but those that talked to him on occasion were stunned by his ability to recall information. Some were intimidated by it, others impressed. One of the witnesses whom Reggie actually decided to get better acquainted with, Rob Ludlow, recounted on the stand that Reggie had confessed to having some rather strong thoughts and feelings for Eve, and a strong tendency to daydream about her. This was all circumstantial at best, but the evidence did not end there.
Reggie's car had been caught on the doorbell footage of one of Eve's neighbors pulling up to the curb diagonally across the street from Eve's house around 2 hours before the murder was believed to have occurred. Cellphone data from that time frame had also placed Reggie as in the area. While the camera footage did not confirm that Reggie had entered Ms. Keel's residence, the jurors found it suspicious that the cell signal magically went dark at that time, which was about 8:30pm. Ms. Keel's car had been caught on camera leaving the area just under 2 hours later. The footage was of poor quality, but it was clear that 2 people were present inside the car. Her body was found about 10 miles outside of town, and the car was recovered not far from that scene submerged in the banks of a lake. Reggie said he was simply pulling over near her residence to take a relaxing walk and think some things through, since the street was familiar to him and that his phone had lost signal because it died. No DNA had been recovered from the scene. The local police, however, were determined to solve this crime since murder clearance rates had been on the decline since the 70s and a group of new recruits to the force felt inspired to change that.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high
Reggie was a man of modest means, and could not afford the best defense, but it would have to do. He knew he was innocent, and was determined to show it. His attorney, however, was admittedly a little offput by his mannerisms thanks to the inversion of the Halo effect (https://www.simplypsychology.org/halo-effect.html). So while this attorney was definitely motivated to defend Reggie, it was not with as much enthusiasm as perhaps it could have been. The prosecution levied assault after assault, and the defense ended up crumbling. Though there was nothing but circumstantial evidence linking Reggie (who knew he did not commit the murder) to the crime, things really appeared out of place to the jurors. At first, the jury was hung. 2 had decided to vote not guilty. As pressures wore on, however, and the conformity effect kicked in (https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html), and eventually the other 2 came around and rendered their verdicts. Reggie was pronounced guilty.
Having now been discarded after disgusting his peers, Reggie would suffer a cruel fate. It wasn't he that had committed the murder at all, no. It was the office manager. This man had wanted to hide an affair he was having, but projected an outward confidence and tendency towards cooperation with the authorities that no one would see it coming. The man was an upstanding member of society, and highly charismatic so no one suspected a thing. He smiled, he had a family. He was socially successful with everything going for him. Reggie's small stature couldn't compete with the narrative alternatives that would be constructed to determine what happened.
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/psychology-of-trust/ The worst part of it all for poor Reggie would be that the judge hadn't eaten a thing since breakfast, and it was nearly noon when the sentencing began. No mercy, full sentence. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunchtime-leniency/
He would be locked away for life without the possibility of parole for the heinous crime he didn't commit. The jurisprudence of those lacking in omnipotence. But, with a sigh of relief and some recompense given to the relatives of Ms. Eve, the job was done. What was once in pieces was now made whole, and the office manager, Delbert, well, he had no problems sleeping at night anymore after the verdict was
announced.
Reggie should have considered buying this course and gain him an advantage. Was this a real story which I don't doubt that there may be many like it in their own unique way of how it happened, the states injustice cystem is more focused on using whatever reason to capitalize on a misfortune of events. This is just a reality of what they do. One of many. Albeit most times when it comes to homicide and murder cases, when the perp is sentenced, it is usually the one who did it the crime. The injustice cystem works to a degree when taking seriously to find all evidence. And that is what needs to be in questioning. Is it all the evidence?
Although most times a judge will say your right to appeal is revoked because XYZ reason, it's a lie because there is laws, and acts that supposedly protect us. Supposedly because it only will protect if you know how to use that defense. And most times lawyers can be shady and be lazy to do the work as well as attorneys who withhold evidence to submit.
Cheers.
The story was concocted, not real, though cases have arisen that are of similar nature. It baffles me how many decisions that humans have taken control over making without the adequate equipment to do so (brains that are free of biases and more perfectly able to reason). And the thing is, they probably all 'feel' they are correct, and that they are smart. Post-hoc, they will sooth themselves with rationalizing their decisions, because this is more comfortable than admitting one could be incorrect.
The incentive structure is also broken in our judicial system. The incentives should be to try and ascertain the truth in a situation (or at least that which has the highest probability of being true), but with a little more money added into the equation, one side is absolutely capable of defending their client whether they are guilty or not. A lawyer wants to win a case, not to determine the truth of the situation. Jurors want to go home, and judges want to eat.
AD Space is mismanaged
only the injured should stand trial
https://tzla.hrpartner.io/jobs/-chief-of-staff-at-tzla-2zez5
evidence to submit Cheers 🥓
Won't be very useful if their pre-existing conditions deny them the insurance coverage to get such a treatment.
Re🤬eD
🥓
BINGO
¡Queremos leerte!
Entra y publica tus artículos con nosotros.
Vota por el witness @cosmicboy123