Arkay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,753
- Reaction score
- 44,043
@Arkay Good post! Thanks for your candor and kindness.
On the instant decisions, the two last decided by Gull, one side lays out the law favorable to them, the other lays out the law favorable to them. Neither issue has a black and white law, codified like a statute. It is common law, and thus requires interpretation. That is why I asked @vinayd "what constitutes nexus?" The answer to that question governs one of the decisions. Lawyers (and I am including Gull, as she is one) often disagree. We have an adversarial system, and that is just the way it is.
In making your decision above, you mention lack of blood at the scene, girls hung upside down, F runes. So you accept the version of the State's witnesses. That is fine, but it is the jury's job to weigh evidence and determine fact, not the judge. The judge determines points of law.
There are certain points I agree on in Judge Gull's ruling, and in others I don't. That's fine, and our rules allow for attorneys that disagree to get another opinion, thus appeals.
I agree it is unbearable for the girls' families. No one can bring them back. It's a terrible thing. This isn't disputed. But RA represents every man and woman in this country (at least Indiana) who faces trial. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Imprisoning any man or woman for two years pre-trial in a prison (not jail) prior to having counsel, not allowing them counsel of their choice, not allowing them to put forth a defense, is unacceptable to me. In my opinion, it's not a search for truth anymore. I want to know what really, actually happened that day on the bridge. Not what the prosecution tells me, not what the defense tells me, not what the judge tells me, but what the evidence tells me. And I can't discern the truth when evidence is withheld for my consideration.
Thank you for your response, as well.
Of course you are correct, we use common law and have an adversarial system. Our inheritance from England.
I do accept the State’s version of events, because IMO what they have described corresponds with the photographic evidence obtained at the scene. To me, Libby’s blood on the tree is much more likely to be due to her last moments on Earth, because I do not see an F shape, but a desperate girl trying to save her life.
I suppose a subjective case can be made for what is a small amount of blood versus a large amount of blood, so I feel confident in the educated opinions of the blood spatter experts and the other forensic experts in their fields, who have concluded that the blood was copious, at least for Libby.
I regard leaves, sticks and twigs to be expected in a forest, particularly in winter when they lie on the ground. I would believe then that they were handy to throw upon the bodies in an attempt to obscure their corpses. Had A and L been found in a desert or on a glacier with leaves and sticks, I would hypothesize that those materials were brought there for nefarious purposes. Not in the woods, though.
I concur with the prosecution because RA has no alibi and the heathen worshippers do, and because to my eyes, RA looks eerily alike to BG. And he himself said he was on the bridge.
You know all this, of course. This and other bits of info that have been disclosed. We just interpret it differently.
I’m all for the notion that a D attorney wants to appeal a judge’s ruling that does not suit the Defense. This is allowed in our judicial system.
Yet I believe JG spent the time necessary to fine-tooth comb through the FM, found it to be feeble, and made her decision. It’s my concerted opinion that had the D put forth an alternate narrative that was evidence-based, we would be having a different conversation.
But all I see from the D is a very lengthy flight of fancy. We know a courtroom is not a Creative Writing Seminar. IMO they cobbled together what they could, but in a judicial setting, concrete evidence must win.
JMO
Last edited: