MURDER

No one likes jury duty. But for the sake of helping me with a project, I'm asking you to temporarily become a juror. I'm trying an experiment for a presentation on views of ethics. I dug up an old court case, changed the names and facts around a little, and have summarized it below. You have been assigned to be on the jury for the court case, and I'd like for you to make a judgement based on the information provided below. This will help me decide if more facts are needed or not.



THE CASE

When influential businessman Allan Cramer (age 58) failed to show up at work for three days in a row and did not answer his phone, Allan’s supervisor called the police to ask them to check up on him at his house to make sure everything was alright. Upon entering the house, however, the police discovered a macabre scene of blood and found Allan Cramer decapitated in his living room.

The police determined from the crime scene that the intruder had come from the back yard in the middle of the night three days prior, took an axe normally used for chopping wood, and broke into the house by disabling the home security system with a small plastic credit card. The intruder went along to Allan’s bedroom while he slept, and attacked him with the axe. Allan’s initial injury was not fatal however, and he frantically tried to escape while the intruder came after him again. Allan managed to flee to the living room before the intruder caught up to him and struck him in the back, severing his spinal cord and rendering him unconscious. The intruder then proceeded to violently hack off Allan’s head, and in some sort of twisted pleasure, actually punted the severed head across the room like one would kick a soccer ball. The intruder then left the same way he entered, put the axe back into the shed, and disappeared.

Some time later, the police arrested Allan’s son, Daniel Cramer (age 21).

Daniel was attending a college approximately 140 miles away. Apparently, Daniel had had disputes with his father over severe financial troubles. Unbeknownst to his father, Daniel had failed out of college the year prior, but had managed to get readmitted. As a result, however, had lost what scholarships he had. In order to pay for his college tuition, Daniel had secretly forged his father’s signature as cosigner for a massive loan. When Allan had discovered the line of credit given to his son using his name, he angrily confronted his son in emails and urged him to return home so that they could discuss the matter face to face. If Daniel refused to talk to him, Allan stated that he would go to the bank and cut the line of credit to avoid liability.

Additionally, during the summer before he had left, Daniel had staged a burglary at his father’s house. Daniel had stolen many items from his own home and sold them on EBay, so that he could keep up with his expensive college-partying lifestyle. However, his father was running out of money and assets for Daniel to use, and with Allan growing more and more furious with his son’s behavior, it was unlikely he would be able to continue the carefree lifestyle of his unless something drastic happened.

On the night of the crime, the security cameras at the college recorded Daniel’s car leaving in the early evening, and not returning until the wee hours of the morning. Cramer’s next door neighbor reported having seen a car that fits perfect description with Daniel’s car parked in Allan’s driveway during the middle of the night. Daniel, however, insisted that he had not left the campus but had fallen asleep in his dormitory while studying for a test, and had barely woken up in time to run off to class the next morning. Coincidentally, he barely managed to get a C on his test.

The police believe that Daniel Cramer came back to his father’s house on the night in question and murdered his father for a dual purpose: to keep his father from cutting the line of credit and getting him into legal trouble, and to collect on a small amount of life insurance from his father’s death. Psychiatrists have determined that Daniel would be mentally capable of doing such a crime, and seeing as Daniel was the only possible suspect aside from a burglar or madman, the police moved to arrest him immediately.

There was a massive amount of circumstantial evidence against Daniel. However, there was not a single piece of physical evidence against him. There was a fair amount blood sprayed from when Allan was attacked, but forensics found not a single trace of blood on Daniel’s body, clothes, or car. No fingerprints could be found at the crime scene, and there were no actual witnesses to prove that Daniel himself was in fact at his father’s house. There's only proof that his car left the campus and that a witness claims to have seen a car that could have been Daniel's in Allan's driveway. It was even rumored that Allan Cramer had ties to the mafia and could have been murdered by a fellow member, but there is not even the slightest piece of evidence behind these rumors.

Provided with only these facts, would you find the defendant innocent or guilty of murder?

Perhaps Innocent should be changed to Not Guilty. Feel free to delete this post if you don't want any clutter.

I'd like at least 12 meaningful votes by today, please. It'd suck if by tomorrow when this is due I only had a few small votes.