pioneerpete
VIP Member
- Jun 26, 2013
- 1,043
- 82
- 83
Does anyone realize that if the jury believes that GZ is even somewhat plausible that they have to acquit? Does anyone realize that by the State flipping it's position from GZ was on top to now we believe it could have been GZ on bottom is the absolute definition of reasonable doubt? If there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the jury must acquit?
I can tell by some people's posts that they don't really follow the trial very closely and are filling in holes with their assumptions. Nobody can prove what happened up to the point where John Good found TM on top of GZ with GZ screaming for help, except that TM started the conversation. Every piece of physical evidence, including the presence of any injuries on GZ supports GZ's story is plausible. Plausible even a little means you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Because this is all that can be proved, nobody's assumptions or assertions outside of these events is relevant.
I can tell by some people's posts that they don't really follow the trial very closely and are filling in holes with their assumptions. Nobody can prove what happened up to the point where John Good found TM on top of GZ with GZ screaming for help, except that TM started the conversation. Every piece of physical evidence, including the presence of any injuries on GZ supports GZ's story is plausible. Plausible even a little means you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Because this is all that can be proved, nobody's assumptions or assertions outside of these events is relevant.