Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

JoeRedskin · 07-12-2013, 03:24 PM

To me, as always, it depends on how seriously the jury takes the presumption of innocence charge. If every fact for which there is not direct or immediate circumstantial evidence is presumed to be in GZ's favor or presumed unproven, I just don't see how a jury could convict.

On the other hand, they don't do so, and allow certain prosecutorial assumptions to stand (key being that (1) TM was either in imminent fear of physical harm before attacking GZ or (2) that TZ initiated the fight plus a host of assumptions relating to the self-defense issue). Then they may very well let it stand.

** When I say "immediate circumstantial evidence", I mean:
(1) "In a forest filled with deer, I saw deer tracks on a path. At the end of the tracks, I saw a deer. Although I didn't see it make the tracks, I assume the deer standing at the end of the tracks is the deer who made the tracks leading up to them"; or,
(2) "In an area filled with deer, a field is fully enclosed on the first of the month. At the time of the enclosure, an inspection was done and there is direct evidence that there were no deer in the field when it was enclosed. People have been allowed to place deer in the enclosure but, since its enclosure, a video camera at the sole entrance verifies that only one deer has ever been placed in the field. The enclosure was inspected immediately after I visited it, and it is intact and has never been repaired, Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the only deer placed in the field".

As compared to:
(1) "I saw deer tracks leading down a path in the woods then they disappearred but a twenty yards down the path, I saw a deer. I assumed that deer is the one that made the tracks I saw"; or
(2) "A field is fully enclosed on the 1st, no inspection was done, but the owner believes no deer were in the enclosure because he saw none as constructed the enclosure. Although others have access to the field and are permitted to place their deer in the field, he states is the only person to do so and he has placed only one deer in the field since its enclosure. He inspected the enclosure after I visited the field on the 15th and it was intact and had never been repaired. On the day of my visit I saw only one deer. Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the deer the owner placed in the field.

The more little holes you fill with assumption and inference, the more and more you risk ignoring the presumption.

07-12-2013, 03:24 PM	#1013
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Re: Trayvon Martin Case To me, as always, it depends on how seriously the jury takes the presumption of innocence charge. If every fact for which there is not direct or immediate circumstantial evidence is presumed to be in GZ's favor or presumed unproven, I just don't see how a jury could convict. On the other hand, they don't do so, and allow certain prosecutorial assumptions to stand (key being that (1) TM was either in imminent fear of physical harm before attacking GZ or (2) that TZ initiated the fight plus a host of assumptions relating to the self-defense issue). Then they may very well let it stand. ** When I say "immediate circumstantial evidence", I mean: (1) "In a forest filled with deer, I saw deer tracks on a path. At the end of the tracks, I saw a deer. Although I didn't see it make the tracks, I assume the deer standing at the end of the tracks is the deer who made the tracks leading up to them"; or, (2) "In an area filled with deer, a field is fully enclosed on the first of the month. At the time of the enclosure, an inspection was done and there is direct evidence that there were no deer in the field when it was enclosed. People have been allowed to place deer in the enclosure but, since its enclosure, a video camera at the sole entrance verifies that only one deer has ever been placed in the field. The enclosure was inspected immediately after I visited it, and it is intact and has never been repaired, Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the only deer placed in the field". As compared to: (1) "I saw deer tracks leading down a path in the woods then they disappearred but a twenty yards down the path, I saw a deer. I assumed that deer is the one that made the tracks I saw"; or (2) "A field is fully enclosed on the 1st, no inspection was done, but the owner believes no deer were in the enclosure because he saw none as constructed the enclosure. Although others have access to the field and are permitted to place their deer in the field, he states is the only person to do so and he has placed only one deer in the field since its enclosure. He inspected the enclosure after I visited the field on the 15th and it was intact and had never been repaired. On the day of my visit I saw only one deer. Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the deer the owner placed in the field. The more little holes you fill with assumption and inference, the more and more you risk ignoring the presumption. __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.