katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 68,062
- Reaction score
- 241,252
That is all very wishful thinking on the DT's part.The witnesses saw BG. No one ID’d RA.
There is no audio/video to support DDs note, so it cannot be proven and is not considered a fact. Therefore, we would default to the only recorded proof of RA actually stating what time he left - the video recorded statement saying 1:30pm. The state holds the burden to prove their facts to be true.
This is why audio/video recording statements is so important.
MOO
Notes from an officer's witness interview ARE considered factual. Not all informal interviews are on video or audiotape.
The info he wrote about the MEID support his accuracy.
There is no reason to 'default' to RA's more recent interview because he had motivation to change his story, as he now knew they had the BG video and more potential evidence against him.
The jury is not going to assume the defendant told the truth when he changed the time of his exit from 3:30 to 1:30.
Especially when the witness testimony fits his original version of the story, and not his newer version.
The witnesses saw BG. Further investigation and evidence confirms that BG=RA. Even RA admits as much.