But is there proof he was running? Nope.
Is it possible that it was the wind? Yes.
So it's his word against your suspicion with no proof.
Can you see what I'm saying?
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Yeah...you just made my point. Things are not always what they seem. And dont be so all about the proof stuff...jurys can use their own common sense and judgment as to what they believe and they dont have to give a reason for it.
So alot of times...its the presentation that matters...not always what is proven without a shadow of doubt...just give the jury something to play with...they will put some pieces together using their own common sense. There is nothing that says the jury can only use what has been absolutely proven...thats subjective...they are the ones determining what they feel is proven to them or what makes sense to them.
A lot of things cant be proven...some things are circumstancial...get off the 100 percent proof kick...it sounds good, but its not reality in most cases.
Speculation runs rampant.
We have no idea what happened.
What you are saying is a good lawyer can convince you anything is true.
I'm only interested in what can be proven.
If you can't prove it, it didn't happen.
Yeah...good lawyers are nice to have. Im not trying to make light of it...its just that in a lot of cases you dont have audio, video and an eyewitness of the entire crime in progress. You have to present it in a way that you believe is logical and the jury puts the pieces together in deliberations. You do the best you can.
So far, to me, its the prosecution who appears to be reaching and its the defense trying to get to the truth...thats just my opinion.
I said at the beginning that this would be like a flip flop of what we are used to...where normally its the prosecution putting all the evidence together and getting to the truth and its the defense throwing out blinders to prevent it.