Dr. John Branion's final appeal - Page 3 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Wamisto · 05-23-2010, 01:11 AM

Good points, guys. However, I still believe it is possible for him to have killed his wife, despite the traffic and snow conditions, for the reasons matt gave.

kadrmas15 · 05-23-2010, 01:29 PM

Well that may be but that is not enough to prove guilt. That is the point Wiseguy and I were trying to make.

Wamisto · 05-24-2010, 12:43 PM

Not enough to prove guilt is not equivalent to not having committed a crime.

I believe he killed his wife - that is the point I am trying to make. Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that is certainly debatable.

XCalibur · 05-24-2010, 06:30 PM

Its always been hard to muster a lot of sympathy for this guy. Basically acted like it was ok to screw around on his wife, and when she was murdered he might as well have danced on her grave.

People who discount the affair as a motive just because she knew about it are naive in my opinion. Even wives who are tolerant of philandering husbands are still usually very hurt by it, and I am betting she was. For all we know she might have told him she'd had enough of it, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors of a marriage.

I think this guy had something of a sympathetic image because he was Martin Luther King's physician in a civil rights era where people tend to have a lot of empathy toward the black population. But if you look past all that he was just some big shot doctor with a selfish nature. Whether or not he was a murderer to I don't know. But as I said, its hard to be to sympathetic towards someone like that.

kadrmas15 · 05-24-2010, 07:48 PM

Yes I know that Wamisto. Did I say anything different? No I did not. I just said the evidence was not strong enough for conviction. Just because I say that does not necessarily mean I truly believe a person to be innocent as in they literally did not do it, just that legally the evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Wamisto · 05-25-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I think this guy had something of a sympathetic image because he was Martin Luther King's physician in a civil rights era where people tend to have a lot of empathy toward the black population. But if you look past all that he was just some big shot doctor with a selfish nature.

Yep, can't agree more. I hate it when people hide behind their civil rights work or other such things. Notice that is how the segment started out. When Dr. Branion said, "you know, I have always fought for equal rights and fair treatment ...". Ugh! Spare me the smokescreen and the self-patting on the back. You've heard of name dropping? This is similar - only that he is dropping the name of a movement instead of a person.

kadrmas15 · 05-25-2010, 02:09 PM

Wow, selfish because he did something well? I am sure the producers of the show asked him about that first and he talked about it. That is hardly selfish that he was interested in something. I am assuming you guys have interests and things you are passionate about and things that you have done well, does that make you selfish too? How is it a smokescreen? The guy was already in prison. It was not like he could hide that fact, whether he was innocent or not. So that is not a smokescreen.

XCalibur · 05-25-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

Wow, selfish because he did something well? I am sure the producers of the show asked him about that first and he talked about it. That is hardly selfish that he was interested in something. I am assuming you guys have interests and things you are passionate about and things that you have done well, does that make you selfish too? How is it a smokescreen? The guy was already in prison. It was not like he could hide that fact, whether he was innocent or not. So that is not a smokescreen.

I didn't say he was selfish because of his medical career or civil rights activist endeavors, I thought he had a selfish nature because he was a long time philanderer and basically acted like there was nothing wrong with it.

kadrmas15 · 05-26-2010, 12:21 PM

He didn't act like there was nothing wrong with it. He was trying to say that his affair was not a motive for killing his wife as she had known about it for years. I think we all have selfish natures to a degree, many people cheat on their spouses, does that make us and them all murderers too?

Wamisto · 05-26-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

He didn't act like there was nothing wrong with it. He was trying to say that his affair was not a motive for killing his wife as she had known about it for years. I think we all have selfish natures to a degree, many people cheat on their spouses, does that make us and them all murderers too?

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to say that all adulterers are murderers: that is a hyperbole that you are using for the sake of belittling and ridiculing the opinions of others - which you have a penchant for.

But if you flip it back around, when a wife ends up shot to death in her own home, the most likely murderer is the husband who has committed adultery on her and who has just recently threatened to divorce him.

kadrmas15 · 05-26-2010, 11:27 PM

Oh brother Wamisto, whatever. I was not ridiculing anyone, but do you need your hand held? Give me a break. I love how you cry a river about how I am allegedly ridiculing another posters points and then you act all high and mighty and condemn me for it and then turn around and do the same thing to me that you were just condemning me for allegedly doing to somebody else.

You miss the point so entirely it is stunning. First off, I was not ridiculing and belittling anyone sir/ma'am. You misinterpret things because we are typing and not talking. So before you jump to conclusions you might ask me to clarify my opinion? I was merely saying that because the guy cheated on his wife did not necessarily mean that because his wife was murdered that he was the one that did it. I did not express it in quite a politically correct point of view. By the way, I don't have a 'penchant' for belittling and ridiculing others. That is absurd. If I think you are wrong, I will certainly point it out but I do not do it for the purpose of ridiculing or belittling you. Showing someone how in my opinion they are wrong is not ridiculing or belittling. I suppose disagreeing with someone is ridiculing or belittling?

Also, I never flipped anything around Wamisto, that is absurd. I was merely pointing out to you there was a possibility Branion did not do it. It is not nearly as far fetched as you make it out to be. Maybe you are right, maybe he went home that day and killed his wife and made it look like a burglary/attempted sexual assault or maybe someone else at his direction did it? I really do not know. I explained to you that just because I said the evidence in my opinion was legally insufficient for a conviction did not necessarily think I thought for sure Branion did not do it. To me, the issue is less about whether Branion did it or not and more was the evidence strong enough to convict him? In my opinion no, at least not the way the state argued the case. They argued that he himself personally pulled the trigger. Okay, that is fine, except when you cannot conclusively say that he could have made it home in time to commit the murder and stuff, that is a problem. How can you convict a man of killing his wife when you cannot even be sure that he was at home at the time the murder occurred? If you are not sure he could have been there than it does not matter whether you personally think he did it or not, you are legally obligated to acquit.

kadrmas15 · 05-26-2010, 11:39 PM

Also yes Wamisto, you are right in that when someone is murdered, the majority of the time it is either their significant other or a member of their family or a friend or at least someone they knew before the killing that is responsible. However just because that is the case the majority of the time does not mean it is the case all the time. While you did not say this per se, you implied it. As if you assume that if someone is murdered, you assume the spouse did it until proven otherwise. I don't think that way.

We are an innocent until proven guilty society in this country. You even attempting to speculate about American jurisprudence would be me like trying to speculate about Canada's jurisprudence. I get people these days tend to think guilty until proven innocent but that is a pretty scary thought. I was merely saying the state in terms of what they were arguing did not in my opinion prove their case. You can acquit someone and think they are guilty. It is not about what you personally think. You are not supposed to base your decision one way or the other on your personal opinions. You are supposed to base it on the evidence presented to you.

justins5256 · 08-31-2010, 09:31 PM

I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible.

The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh?

Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned?

This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory.

Any thoughts?

crystaldawn · 09-01-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justins5256

I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible.

The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh?

Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned?

This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory.

Any thoughts?

I've never really thought he was guilty but haven't done any research beyond watching the UM segment. Do you think his motive was getting his wife out of the way so he could marry his mistress?

XCalibur · 09-02-2010, 05:59 PM

No, not all adulterers are murderers.

But adultery, especially when its carried out for years and years, does indicate a selfish nature. And someone without a lot of love in their heart. At least not for their wife.

I've always been a believer that all sins can lead to other sins, and I think a long time adulterer is more likely to be a murderer than someone who is not. Because like I said, its indicative of a selfish nature.

Now no one is perfect, and if a man or a woman is married for many years and has a couple of slip ups here and there and feels bad for it, thats one thing.

But to carry on an affair for years and act like there is nothing wrong with it, thats a little different.

05-23-2010, 01:11 AM	#31
Wamisto Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Feb 07, 2003 Posts: 238	Good points, guys. However, I still believe it is possible for him to have killed his wife, despite the traffic and snow conditions, for the reasons matt gave.

05-23-2010, 01:29 PM	#32
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Well that may be but that is not enough to prove guilt. That is the point Wiseguy and I were trying to make.

05-24-2010, 12:43 PM	#33
Wamisto Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Feb 07, 2003 Posts: 238	Not enough to prove guilt is not equivalent to not having committed a crime. I believe he killed his wife - that is the point I am trying to make. Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that is certainly debatable.

05-24-2010, 06:30 PM	#34
XCalibur Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 16, 2010 Location: Belfast, Va Posts: 987	Its always been hard to muster a lot of sympathy for this guy. Basically acted like it was ok to screw around on his wife, and when she was murdered he might as well have danced on her grave. People who discount the affair as a motive just because she knew about it are naive in my opinion. Even wives who are tolerant of philandering husbands are still usually very hurt by it, and I am betting she was. For all we know she might have told him she'd had enough of it, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors of a marriage. I think this guy had something of a sympathetic image because he was Martin Luther King's physician in a civil rights era where people tend to have a lot of empathy toward the black population. But if you look past all that he was just some big shot doctor with a selfish nature. Whether or not he was a murderer to I don't know. But as I said, its hard to be to sympathetic towards someone like that.

05-24-2010, 07:48 PM	#35
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Yes I know that Wamisto. Did I say anything different? No I did not. I just said the evidence was not strong enough for conviction. Just because I say that does not necessarily mean I truly believe a person to be innocent as in they literally did not do it, just that legally the evidence was insufficient for conviction.

05-25-2010, 02:09 PM	#37
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Wow, selfish because he did something well? I am sure the producers of the show asked him about that first and he talked about it. That is hardly selfish that he was interested in something. I am assuming you guys have interests and things you are passionate about and things that you have done well, does that make you selfish too? How is it a smokescreen? The guy was already in prison. It was not like he could hide that fact, whether he was innocent or not. So that is not a smokescreen.

05-26-2010, 12:21 PM	#39
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	He didn't act like there was nothing wrong with it. He was trying to say that his affair was not a motive for killing his wife as she had known about it for years. I think we all have selfish natures to a degree, many people cheat on their spouses, does that make us and them all murderers too?

05-26-2010, 11:27 PM	#41
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Oh brother Wamisto, whatever. I was not ridiculing anyone, but do you need your hand held? Give me a break. I love how you cry a river about how I am allegedly ridiculing another posters points and then you act all high and mighty and condemn me for it and then turn around and do the same thing to me that you were just condemning me for allegedly doing to somebody else. You miss the point so entirely it is stunning. First off, I was not ridiculing and belittling anyone sir/ma'am. You misinterpret things because we are typing and not talking. So before you jump to conclusions you might ask me to clarify my opinion? I was merely saying that because the guy cheated on his wife did not necessarily mean that because his wife was murdered that he was the one that did it. I did not express it in quite a politically correct point of view. By the way, I don't have a 'penchant' for belittling and ridiculing others. That is absurd. If I think you are wrong, I will certainly point it out but I do not do it for the purpose of ridiculing or belittling you. Showing someone how in my opinion they are wrong is not ridiculing or belittling. I suppose disagreeing with someone is ridiculing or belittling? Also, I never flipped anything around Wamisto, that is absurd. I was merely pointing out to you there was a possibility Branion did not do it. It is not nearly as far fetched as you make it out to be. Maybe you are right, maybe he went home that day and killed his wife and made it look like a burglary/attempted sexual assault or maybe someone else at his direction did it? I really do not know. I explained to you that just because I said the evidence in my opinion was legally insufficient for a conviction did not necessarily think I thought for sure Branion did not do it. To me, the issue is less about whether Branion did it or not and more was the evidence strong enough to convict him? In my opinion no, at least not the way the state argued the case. They argued that he himself personally pulled the trigger. Okay, that is fine, except when you cannot conclusively say that he could have made it home in time to commit the murder and stuff, that is a problem. How can you convict a man of killing his wife when you cannot even be sure that he was at home at the time the murder occurred? If you are not sure he could have been there than it does not matter whether you personally think he did it or not, you are legally obligated to acquit.

05-26-2010, 11:39 PM	#42
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Also yes Wamisto, you are right in that when someone is murdered, the majority of the time it is either their significant other or a member of their family or a friend or at least someone they knew before the killing that is responsible. However just because that is the case the majority of the time does not mean it is the case all the time. While you did not say this per se, you implied it. As if you assume that if someone is murdered, you assume the spouse did it until proven otherwise. I don't think that way. We are an innocent until proven guilty society in this country. You even attempting to speculate about American jurisprudence would be me like trying to speculate about Canada's jurisprudence. I get people these days tend to think guilty until proven innocent but that is a pretty scary thought. I was merely saying the state in terms of what they were arguing did not in my opinion prove their case. You can acquit someone and think they are guilty. It is not about what you personally think. You are not supposed to base your decision one way or the other on your personal opinions. You are supposed to base it on the evidence presented to you.

08-31-2010, 09:31 PM	#43
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible. The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh? Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned? This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory. Any thoughts?

09-02-2010, 05:59 PM	#45
XCalibur Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 16, 2010 Location: Belfast, Va Posts: 987	No, not all adulterers are murderers. But adultery, especially when its carried out for years and years, does indicate a selfish nature. And someone without a lot of love in their heart. At least not for their wife. I've always been a believer that all sins can lead to other sins, and I think a long time adulterer is more likely to be a murderer than someone who is not. Because like I said, its indicative of a selfish nature. Now no one is perfect, and if a man or a woman is married for many years and has a couple of slip ups here and there and feels bad for it, thats one thing. But to carry on an affair for years and act like there is nothing wrong with it, thats a little different.