Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oh, what the heck. Here's an example of "circumstantial evidence"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:46 PM
Original message
Oh, what the heck. Here's an example of "circumstantial evidence"
Edited on Wed Mar-16-05 11:47 PM by Lex
.
You look out the window before you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground.

You get up in the morning and look out the window. There is snow on the ground.

You think "it snowed while I was asleep." That conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence because you never saw it snow.

Circumstantial evidence is perfectly allowable evidence in a court of law and a jury is allowed to consider circumstantial evidence put before them and decide if it is valid or not.

Sometimes a jury says, yes that's valid circumstantial evidence and sometimes they reject it.

FWIW.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. The believability of circumstantial evidence
Basically boils down to this:

How large or how many leaps of logic the proponent of the evidence wants you to make.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. True. Which is why the more circumstantial evidence there is
pointing toward a defendant then the less leaps the jury has to make in order to form a conclusion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Or you think "Abe Vigoda showed up last night and shit snow on my lawn"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. You're the juror the Defense is looking for! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Seems plausible to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Your conclusion is true
only if CNN didn't make money off it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. LOL!
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. another circumstance...
we must all act and grieve according to the law. Peterson was stoned faced, therefore he is guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hickman1937 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. No, he was a stone faced adulterer,
so he must die. And a liar. So he must be a murderer. All stone faced liars are murderers, especially if their mistress tapes the lies, and gets a book deal. The bonus is when periphery family members get to cash in too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. and don't forget Larry King...
he's was running out of royalty gossip, peterson has kept him in the biz!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hickman1937 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Don't forget Court TV.
Where would they be without OJ and Scott?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Satara Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. circumstantial evidence
There is really something to be said for gut instinct, however it can be faulty.

For example in re: to the snow scenario-- most likely it snowed while you were asleep BUT it isn't completely out of the question that a snow machine could have been used by say... your partner... as a romantic gesture for something like an... anniversary !

And on the darker side; circumstantial evidence is an excellent reason to not have the death penalty in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well, I think that is why you have to look at ALL the circumstances
presented before you can draw your conclusion.

But the standard could never be met if it were "guilty with NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER."

Everyone has some degree of doubt--did aliens do it, or, can I construct an outlandish theory about what might've happened.

That's why we ask 12 peers of the defendant to listen to and sift through the evidence, and deliberate with each other.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hickman1937 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. And the 12 peers will sift, and deliberate, and come up with the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. More often than not, they will.
Edited on Thu Mar-17-05 12:29 AM by Lex
.
Better to let 10 guilty men go free than put 1 innocent man in prison, however.


Oh, and even with eyewitness testimony (non-circumstantial) people are wrongfully convicted.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. DNA is circumstantial evidence
virtually everything is, right? Eye witness testimony isn't, but then it's also highly unreliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. OBJECTION! How do we know you didn't look out the window on
the north side of the house where the snow had been cleared before you went to bed and in the morning you looked out the SOUTH side window where the snow has been all along?

Perhaps you are trying to get the jury to believe "it snowed while you were asleep" because that would give you an alibi for the day of the incident?


I have no further use for this witness...



:evilgrin:


Damn, I always wanted to do that!

/playinglawyeronDU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. You have to believe me because I'm so darn credible!
And besides, just wait 'til I put the weatherman on the stand!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. perhaps it wasn't snow at all...
but the cottonwood trees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
19. Whats all this about circumcised evidence ?
Miss Latella is innocent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. LOL!
"Nevermind."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Magellan circumsized the world with his 30 foot clipper!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC