08-14-2007, 03:27 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
As long as we're throwing him into this argument, might as well . . . .
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
08-14-2007, 07:01 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
You are not being very lawyerly about this. That he cried is absolutely probative evidecne of his state of mind. If you were trying this case you would argue it to the jury. How the jury would receive the argument is hard to determine and is one of the reasons assessing guilt based upon this sort of evidence so long after the fact is very difficult. How can we read the circumstances now, so many years later? Did the tears mean guilt or innocence? We are too far removed to know, IMO.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
08-14-2007, 08:43 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Then you would remind them that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution (those who claim he was directly involved). |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|