07-26-2012, 02:16 PM
I know we all want a facts only story and the full truth of what happened but no matter what, there were no witnesses apart from those involved. By definition, if you're involved there's always a possible conflict of interest. Our expectations, unfortunately, are too high in light of that...this isn't NCIS.
We can speculate and get very close I believe, but there's no "magic bullet" in solving this completely. Hence why we have to focus on "involvement" and "contribution" as opposed to "who physically taped the necks, the one who taped the ankles isn't important...that didn't kill them". Well they're both guilty of the crime because they are participants.
The more specific the prosecution gets, the more the defense will blind people by battling tiny details and making everyone lose sight of the whole picture.
So yes if you want someone to be charged based merely on circumstantial evidence you can only go so far in giving details. Every detail you add could very well serve as another pin hole for the defense to spread open.
It sucks yes, but even with a full confession we'll never know if something was changed or left out. So we can't have a "scientific fact only" account of what happened because scientifically we only have a cig butt. However all the circumstantial evidence added up provides, to me at least, reason enough to not doubt the defendant's involvement.
Just my two cents and I'm holding to it.
We can speculate and get very close I believe, but there's no "magic bullet" in solving this completely. Hence why we have to focus on "involvement" and "contribution" as opposed to "who physically taped the necks, the one who taped the ankles isn't important...that didn't kill them". Well they're both guilty of the crime because they are participants.
The more specific the prosecution gets, the more the defense will blind people by battling tiny details and making everyone lose sight of the whole picture.
So yes if you want someone to be charged based merely on circumstantial evidence you can only go so far in giving details. Every detail you add could very well serve as another pin hole for the defense to spread open.
It sucks yes, but even with a full confession we'll never know if something was changed or left out. So we can't have a "scientific fact only" account of what happened because scientifically we only have a cig butt. However all the circumstantial evidence added up provides, to me at least, reason enough to not doubt the defendant's involvement.
Just my two cents and I'm holding to it.