I can't see much reason to repeatedly burn the bodies unless it was to disguise cause of death and limit the possibility of identification. I am somewhat confused as to how they found him guilty of one murder but not the other. The mention of other disappearances sounds like a little added salaciousness intimating that he might be a serial killer. I've done jury service here in the UK and the judge is a lot more involved in the conduct of the trial and ensures that it's fairly run, or at least as far as the letter of the law is concerned anyway. After being familiar with the French inquisitorial system I don't think either legal system is without it's major flaws and limitations tbh.
Lots of questions which the book answers far better than a youtube comment thread: While we can't be sure what was in his head (he appears to be an inveterate liar). The bodies were burned, in my opinion, with the intent of them NEVER being found. If he had not have pinpointed the location, they would not have been. Very wild, rugged terrain, lots of it. The pieces of bone were coin sized, and would not have been picked up at all except by a trained forensics team.
Why one murder but not the other? The charges were phrased in such a way that the jury HAD to respond to a charge of murder, not manslaughter. There was no manslaughter charge at all, so, premeditated. Not due to accident or as result of an altercation. The book does talk about how the charges were laid that way. This judge... look I am not going to express my opinions on this, on the internet, for a case that is on it's way to an appeal court.
The other disappearances was interesting and I don't think it was kept in the book by accident. This was a VERY well edited book. Also, I agree, both forms of judicial system have their failings (which Greek philosopher was it who said that any system would?), any human 'justice system' is bound to. The different systems and their mitigating measures are a fascinating debate.
@@OmnivorousReader it will be interesting to see what happens if and when it goes to appeal. I'm not sure which philosopher said it but it sounds like the kind of thing Socrates would have said, Plato was a bit more certain he was always right 😉. Unless we come up with a technology to read what was inside someone's head and was infallible then any system humans (or machines come up with for that matter) is going to have flaws as there is always going to be the conflict between objective truth and subjective (based on assumptions and probabilities). The law is an endlessly fascinating subject that we could debate for hours and never cone to a solution that pleases everybody.
@@adrianmcmahon5731 It truly is! Anyone who thinks law is not interesting just never got introduced to it the right way. Objective vs Subjective yes, but also the There is the question of what the law can permit in an investigation (which is relevant to this court case). And the rights of an individual within a justice system. Actually there is a classic SF book with a trial in which there *is* technology to read inside someone's head and the verdict still came out unjust. Because the system identified agitation, and interpreted it (incorrectly) as a repressed desire for vengeance. Law and justice... endlessly fascinating. What type of encounter with the French system did you have, if you don't mind me asking?
I can't see much reason to repeatedly burn the bodies unless it was to disguise cause of death and limit the possibility of identification. I am somewhat confused as to how they found him guilty of one murder but not the other. The mention of other disappearances sounds like a little added salaciousness intimating that he might be a serial killer. I've done jury service here in the UK and the judge is a lot more involved in the conduct of the trial and ensures that it's fairly run, or at least as far as the letter of the law is concerned anyway. After being familiar with the French inquisitorial system I don't think either legal system is without it's major flaws and limitations tbh.
Lots of questions which the book answers far better than a youtube comment thread: While we can't be sure what was in his head (he appears to be an inveterate liar). The bodies were burned, in my opinion, with the intent of them NEVER being found. If he had not have pinpointed the location, they would not have been. Very wild, rugged terrain, lots of it. The pieces of bone were coin sized, and would not have been picked up at all except by a trained forensics team.
Why one murder but not the other? The charges were phrased in such a way that the jury HAD to respond to a charge of murder, not manslaughter. There was no manslaughter charge at all, so, premeditated. Not due to accident or as result of an altercation. The book does talk about how the charges were laid that way. This judge... look I am not going to express my opinions on this, on the internet, for a case that is on it's way to an appeal court.
The other disappearances was interesting and I don't think it was kept in the book by accident. This was a VERY well edited book. Also, I agree, both forms of judicial system have their failings (which Greek philosopher was it who said that any system would?), any human 'justice system' is bound to. The different systems and their mitigating measures are a fascinating debate.
@@OmnivorousReader it will be interesting to see what happens if and when it goes to appeal. I'm not sure which philosopher said it but it sounds like the kind of thing Socrates would have said, Plato was a bit more certain he was always right 😉. Unless we come up with a technology to read what was inside someone's head and was infallible then any system humans (or machines come up with for that matter) is going to have flaws as there is always going to be the conflict between objective truth and subjective (based on assumptions and probabilities). The law is an endlessly fascinating subject that we could debate for hours and never cone to a solution that pleases everybody.
@@adrianmcmahon5731 It truly is! Anyone who thinks law is not interesting just never got introduced to it the right way. Objective vs Subjective yes, but also the There is the question of what the law can permit in an investigation (which is relevant to this court case). And the rights of an individual within a justice system.
Actually there is a classic SF book with a trial in which there *is* technology to read inside someone's head and the verdict still came out unjust. Because the system identified agitation, and interpreted it (incorrectly) as a repressed desire for vengeance. Law and justice... endlessly fascinating.
What type of encounter with the French system did you have, if you don't mind me asking?