bunnyphoenix1
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,146
- Reaction score
- 0
I know everyone has their theories, but we (WSers who have spent eons here working on case after case) are used to working within the known facts of a case to arrive at various theories and to arrive at the correct conclusions to solve any case. No disrespect meant from any of us old timers, but it is just how we go about trying to find the ultimate truth. You start with the truth in facts and work from there.
You have been very nice to me, so I'm not complaining at all. But please keep in mind, that just because some of us are new, doesn't mean we can't "start with the truth in facts and work from there".
I suspect I am not the only newbie who has worked in criminal law for some time. Most of us who work in the field, are also quite capable of analyzing evidence. I joined WS because I saw how informative and intelligent the posters were, and wanted to be part of the discussions. But just because I haven't posted here before, doesn't mean I'm not familiar with how to analyze evidence or that you or any WSer should assume that's the case with me or any other newbie.
I love that people disagree with me...and when they provide me with a good argument for disagreeing, I often am persuaded to their argument. When looking at criminal cases, in my experience, if you are involved in presenting that case to a jury, it is very important to know that people can look at the same thing and see it as something quite different to how you see it and you want to make sure you address as many of the possible scenarios that the jurors are contemplating as is possible.
What I am finding happen though, is I put forward an idea, and people say what I state is false without providing evidence to prove the falsity. EG...."Tony definitely didn't know". I really don't get how anyone posting here could possibly say this and know this for a fact.