Both SDH and I have answered you on multiple occasions on this.
SDH explained to you the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
A jury is free to find either convincing in its determination. That you or I may prefer that there were eyewitnesses or a video surveillance system, rather than "he said she said" is irrelevant. Of course that is preferable. I didn't follow the case as closely as either of you, but my understanding is that there was more than that (didn't witnesses testify that EJC told them of the attack around the time of the incident?)
The jury gets to decide if that is sufficient based the jury instructions they are given.
I have explained to you: (i) you have no idea who "hates" whom (judge, jury, prosecutor), and (ii) that doesn't matter. Each of those groups have rules and ethics by which they must abide in the prosecution of their duties. Do you think Timothy McVeigh's prosecutors hated him? I wouldn't be surprised (depending on how you define hate), but I sure wouldn't blame them.
When the jury finds the plaintiff's case more convincing, it isn't the product of hate. Its a product of them doing the best they can with the evidence they have. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case. Now, if you can prove that the jury voted a certain way based on improper interference/influence, I'm all ears, but you don't have any of that proof.
This will be the last time I explain this to you. I can't speak for others.
Now, I have answered your question. Do me the courtesy of answering mine.
|
(
In response to this post by Los Angeles Hoo)
Posted: 01/23/2024 at 6:54PM