TexasCHLforum.com

Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

mamabearCali wrote:Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

Testimony from an expert witness of their opinion or "conjecture" is admissable evidence.

WildBill wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

Testimony from an expert witness of their opinion or "conjecture" is admissable evidence.

But even that has to be based on evidence. An expert witness would not be allowed to testify that he thought that "Zimmerman started the fight", unless there was something that supported it.

On the other hand, Zimmer would be allowed to state that Martin started the fight. Things like that, and the need to overcome "reasonable doubt", are what tilt our system towards the accused.

Jusster wrote:Oh really? So what do you consider circumstantial evidence to be?

It be insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.

ScooterSissy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

Testimony from an expert witness of their opinion or "conjecture" is admissable evidence.

But even that has to be based on evidence. An expert witness would not be allowed to testify that he thought that "Zimmerman started the fight", unless there was something that supported it.

On the other hand, Zimmer would be allowed to state that Martin started the fight. Things like that, and the need to overcome "reasonable doubt", are what tilt our system towards the accused.

what he said.

Lynching mob attacks started: http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/ ... oledo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always be ready.

Beiruty wrote:Lunching mob attacks started: http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/ ... oledo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always be ready.

Maybe the youths were just hungry, and wanted his pork rinds...

You did say "Lunching mob" ...

ScooterSissy wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Lunching mob attacks started: http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/ ... oledo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always be ready.

Maybe the youths were just hungry, and wanted his pork rinds...

You did say "Lunching mob" ...

Fixed the typo for you.

Liberals like Pirerce Morgan think we are living in UK. Call US laws absurd. That is insulting, US was liberated from the British crown on July 4th 1776.

Mr. Morgan go HOME. Your folks miss you badly.

Video here:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/vi ... orneys.cnn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

I'm no lawyer. So my opinion on this isn't worth the normal 2 cents. But. Seems that Conjecture is always admitted during the selection of the jury, opening and closing statements and those pesky questions that are asked, but the judge overrules and the jury always still remembers.

Caylee Anthony drowning in the backyard swimming pool and her former police officer dad telling Casey to hide the body. To me that was pure Conjecture that was admitted in court, but was not supported by any evidence. That worked for her.

If this goes to trial the DA will get the jury to believe that Trayvon was stalked by a racist and was then attacked by a police wanabe, who fired his gun only after he started losing the fight. Trayvon was "standing his ground" and was murdered will be the DA's case.

Beiruty wrote:Lynching mob attacks started: http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/ ... oledo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always be ready.

On the plus side, the victim said he's gonna get a gun and a permit to carry it now. But yeah... scary stuff.

mamabearCali wrote:Circumstantial evidence is not the same as conjecture. Conjecture is what we have here....it is a guess or a narrative, but it is not based on any evidence.

We have no evidence of Zimmerman attacking Martin at the moment. So stating that you believe he did so is not circumstantial evidence, but is conjecture. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes admissable in court, conjecture is not.

That's not what I said. I said circumstantial evidence is nothing more than indirect evidence used to prove the prosecutions theory. Conjecture/theory (same thing) is the premise of both the prosecution and defense. Both sides are trying to prove what they believe are the facts/truth based on the evidence.

Jusster

ScooterSissy wrote:

Jusster wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Jusster wrote: So yes, based on my theory and what I believe I will just simply agree to disagree.


Jusster

I think you missed my point. I know we disagree. My point though was that the prosecution (if Zimmerman is tried) will have to prove Zimmerman's guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Theories won't work, for the prosecution. The will work for the defense though. That's how they introduce reasonable doubt.

Oh really? So what do you consider circumstantial evidence to be? It's nothing more than indirect evidence used to prove the prosecutions "theory". People are convicted with it ALL the time. If you think our legal system works on "pure" facts or direct evidence you would be sadly mistaken.


Jusster

Yes, I understand what circumstantial evidence is. I don't think you understand what a "theory" is. We've been discussing theories - the theories you've been presenting are not based on evidence. For example:
My theory is that Zimmerman started the fight with Martin
Maybe Martin smarted off to him like a typical 17 year old would do, and Zimmerman wanted to teach him a lesson.
I don't think Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and got jumped
There's been no evidence (so far) to support those statements (and those are just examples). So your theory is based on assumptions, not evidence. Evidence is required to convict

Again, for clarification, even if you're correct when you say "my theory is just as sound as anybody else’s", don't confuse your theory with "circumstantial evidence". It's not evidence of any kind, it's a theory based on your gut feelings.

First of all I never said my theories were circumstantial evidence. You said the prosecution will not use theory. So I asked you if you have heard of circumstantial evidence and then said that the prosecution will use it to "prove" it's theory. Maybe you should re-read my post.

I have based my personal theories on the evidence we have so far. Such as Zimmermans 911 call, the phone records, and what Martins GF said took place on that phone call. You may have a different take on it, that's your choice. In the end if it does go to court both sides will try to make this evidence fit there theories and it will be up to a jury to decide the facts.


Jusster

Conjecture has to based in fact though and supported by evidence...especially when admitted by the prosecution. A prosecutor can't just say "we think Zimmerman attacked Martin"--the question right back at him is do you have any evidence of this? The answer can't be "well just cause I have a gut feeling."

IANAL but I hve seen commentary on this by people who are. Several times I have been told that really it does not matter who engaged who first. Martin had Zimmerman on the ground (evidenced by injuries and wittness testimony). Zimmerman even if he did start Martin by say pushing him (no evidence of that, but lets say he did) had obviously wanted to disengage (screaming for help), and so with Martin's head bashing was then in the clear to use deadly force to stop from being killed.

mamabearCali wrote:Conjecture has to based in fact though and supported by evidence...especially when admitted by the prosecution. A prosecutor can't just say "we think Zimmerman attacked Martin"--the question right back at him is do you have any evidence of this? The answer can't be "well just cause I have a gut feeling."

IANAL but I hve seen commentary on this by people who are. Several times I have been told that really it does not matter who engaged who first. Martin had Zimmerman on the ground (evidenced by injuries and wittness testimony). Zimmerman even if he did start Martin by say pushing him (no evidence of that, but lets say he did) had obviously wanted to disengage (screaming for help), and so with Martin's head bashing was then in the clear to use deadly force to stop from being killed.

That appears to be the crux of the problem with the fact pattern. Martin's mother is said to identified the voice as her son's. Another report was said to have had the voice print analyzed electronically and that it wasn't Zimmerman's. IMHO, if it was not Zimmerman yelling for help, his version of the the account becomes suspect. Martin yelling for help before the gunshot on the tape is the problem. There has been not statement that it was a 3rd party yelling for help so it pretty much has to be one of the two involved. Which one could be pivotal.