one stable, one in surgery
I don't know why he keeps harping on that either, if there was evidence that they announced themselves Walker is in jail and Taylor's family doesn't get anything. The juries decision most likely didn't come down to that because as I've said previously they were executing a warrant, I believe that's why they did not press charges for murder.
one stable, one in surgery
No, you cannot prove you were at home just because you said you were at home, that's circular reasoning. If someone told police they saw you at HEB, you'd be questioned and you'd need to provide an alibi. People get arrested all the time on false witness testimony.
If one person can put you at the scene of the crime, that one person is all that is needed to put you at the scene of the crime IF THE JURY FINDS THEM CREDIBLE.
If 30 people put you at the scene of the crime and the jury finds that all 30 of them were lying or mistaken "are these magic grits?" then number of times they saw more witnesses means nothing. It's all about credibility.
Seems like the BLM folks need to get with some mass shooters to learn accuracy.
That's a red herring. You gave the caveat, not me.
You only need 1 credible witness to hear something to prove it was said. If it wasn't said it couldn't have been heard. Not the same with eye witnesses who think they saw something (without vivid recollection... he pulled up in a green Pontiac Tempest, he and a friend robbed the Sac-o-Suds...)
its not a red herring. we have multiple neighbors saying one thing and one neighbor saying another thing
Is that humor?
I'm saying I was at home. And the witness is mistaken. I can't provide an alibi I'm at home alone. The witness i wrong i go to jail. Hence "the appearance of evidence does not mean confirmation". A sentence you appear to disagree with.
They are saying they cannot corroborate it was said. They are not corroborating the claim that it wasn't said. One person who heard it corroborates it was said. Not seeing something doesn't make you a witness.
It is what it is
Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)
In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.
Proof of me being at home is proof against me being with victim
You said you have no proof you were at home.
you said "proof for isn't the same as proof against"
I said "proof for is the same as proof against". Because evidence is evidence and there are no qualifiers for what you are trying to prove. The appearance of evidence does not magically absolve you of sin, and it does not condemn you either.
This was your original statement. The subsequent statements are after my response "it only takes 1". You offered caveats and I allowed the same caveats for all witnesses because those are accepted caveats always.
If you had 12 people who heard it and one who did not, it still wasn't loud enough for all people to hear it. You said the claim was they announced. You didn't say the claim was they announced loud enough for everyone in the building to hear.
If even 1 person heard them announce, that's corroborating evidence they announced.
"You better hope no one saw you" vs "you better hope 12 people didn't see you"
Do you think cops ever consider whether or not their announcements are loud enough for everyone in the building to hear when they door kick a neighborhood or apt door? They announce because they are required to, by law.
strawman
obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus
a lesser person would say something like "I'm not revisiting your edits. Slow your F5 spamming and think about what you want to say before rapid fire posting."
one person saying it would be corroborating evidence. but it may or may not be sufficient evidence for a jury to be convinced. if several other neighbors who were equally distant or possibly even closer said they heard nothing of the sort before gunshots, they jury would have to decide if one side is full of , or perhaps if the other neighbors are harder of hearing, or if the one neighbor is just wanting to be pro police, etc etc
evidence =/= proof
If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.
In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. So if someone you don't even know proves you were at the scene of the crime (proof for you being suspect), and you have proof that you were at home (proof against you being suspect), then we are in two different universes or someone is wrong/lying. Only one of you can have proof. Sure, proof of anything means proof of other things or proof against other things. Higgs boson, for example.. doesn't exist. One found provides proof against the negative claim of non-existence. Two different claims, existence vs non-existence. They are not necessarily contingent upon one another.
That's what I said.
Now you're getting into subjective conditions. If the one who said they did hear it was further away, that would put the testimony of that 1 in doubt. But if that 1 was the closest, then it stands to reason that they would be the one to hear it. Unless there are standards for distance witnesses need to be to have heard it, else it wasn't said... but you never know.
It would appear that
The prosecution rests
yes. because i was agreeing with you, in part.
you introduced the "farther away" element by suggesting everyone in the building had to hear it
Wow.
this is exactly what you do to me.
good catch.
wiggle and squirm, try to extricate yourself from your self burial
You hate/love to see it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)