Why was Ryan Holle convicted based on supposedly knowing a crime?
<p>In this question, someone asked if someone told you that he committed a crime, that doesn't mean that you know it's true.</p>

<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/18141/can-anything-be-done-when-people-admit-to-crimes-through-an-online-game?rq=1">Can anything be done when people admit to crimes through an online game?</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If you have knowledge of a serious crime then you can (and in some
  jurisdictions, are required) to report it to the police.</p>
  
  <p>However, you don't have such knowledge</p>
  
  <p>People say things that aren't true. They do this a lot on the
  internet. In fact, it was I who shot JFK: I did it 5 years before I
  was born which is a neat trick but not beyond the abilities of the
  mafia/Cuban/Russian syndicates I was working for, when they catch me I
  will tell them how it was done.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's because he may lie. He may made stories up. Not just because someone told me he murdered someone means he really did.</p>

<p>In fact, many famous people, admit that they committed a crime. Obama admitted using ganja. Steve Jobs admitted using LSD. Why aren't they convicted? Because we don't know they really did it.</p>

<p>Someone told Ryan Holle they gonna rob somebody. Ryan thought it's a joke. Latter he lend his car. Why did the jury presume that Ryan knows that someone would rob a car simply because they said so? They could be joking.</p>

<p>Based on what I see, Ryan probably didn't know they gonna rob somebody. If he knew, he wouldn't lend the car. Why would he? Do they have agreement to split the spoils of robbery? He lend the car, not renting it. He gets nothing out of the robbery even if it's successful. Why would anyone risk long jail time lending a car if he knew there is a robbery.</p>

<p>Chance is he didn't know.</p>

<p>Why did people convict Ryan anyway?</p>

<p>The state argued, and the jury was convinced, that Mr. Holle turned over his keys specifically intending to facilitate the robbery. They necessarily found that Mr. Holle was not telling the truth when he said he thought it was all a joke.</p>

<p>I don't know what evidence they had to demonstrate that, but I could imagine that there was testimony indicating Mr. Holle knew that these people had engaged in similar acts before, that the group spoke of the plan with a level of specificity that made him aware they were not joking, or that he saw them taking other steps to prepare that let him know they were planning a crime.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter if he wasn't renting the vehicle or didn't have an agreement to divide the spoils. The question of "why" he facilitated the crime is technically irrelevant to the legal question of whether he facilitated the crime. Nonetheless, I could imagine several reasons why he would have lent his car: he wanted to ingratiate himself with this group, he was bullied into doing it, he believed he would get some of the pot they stole, he didn't like the target, and so on.</p>

<p>The fact that he was risking prison time is a uniquely poor argument that he didn't know what he was doing. The risk of punishment is always present for committing a crime, and yet we know that people commit crimes all day, every day. Why do they do it? Probably a good question for <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/">psychology.SE</a>.</p>

<p>I have all the original testimonies. I was present at every trial. Media and blogs are good at twisting stories to attract more attention to their same personal views and opinions. Not all the facts are out there. They make my mother out to be a drug dealer yet don't have the facts from her case either. </p>

<p>As the sister who lost not only her sister but her best friend and then lost my mother to prison as well because of it all. I'm still living with the consequences of Ryan's actions and inactions to stop it from happening. I'm still feeling punishment from their actions. He deserves his time, I have to live with it the rest of my life feeling punished so why shouldn't he! </p>

<p>No car, no crime, he knew the plan, he could have prevented it. He knew, he gave them bandannas to put over their faces, he called while they were at my house. But people still believe him when he says he didn't think it was for real. Tell me how could you not have that feeling in your stomach or common sense in your brain after all that. They discussed the plan with him, he gave them bandannas and his car, he called them and he still couldn't take a hint!? </p>

<p>Yeah okay everybody keep believing that he didn't know they would really do it. 16 years later still haunting me. </p>

<p>Well, the simple reason is that the prosecutor made a case that Ryan either was an active participant or known about the crime and the jury believed the prosecutor. You can look at the judge's instructions to see what facts are required to convict in that jurisdiction. If the other person was a known criminal or did not indicate that it was a joke, then, yes, it can be argued that Ryan should have concerns that his car would be used in a crime. Also, remember that it is not "beyond all doubt" only "beyond reasonable doubt." Whatever arrangements Ryan and the other guy had is not important, only that Ryan had knowledge that his car may become involved in a crime.</p>

murder