ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2

[MeadowMuffin]

1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence | Model Jury Instructions

" 1.5 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.

You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence."

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

So where does the 5ft 8inch person fit into all of this??

Do you think there were two people that committed these murders?

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence | Model Jury Instructions

" 1.5 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.

You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence."

Reasonable doubt can be inferred from Circumstantial Evidence because there can potentially be a number of alternative theories.

Direct evidence makes that almost impossible as its based on fact.

 

[TTF14]

So where does the 5ft 8inch person fit into all of this??

Do you think there were two people that committed these murders?

Eye witness error. She was a McDonald's employee having a cigarette. She didn't walk over to him with measuring tape. It makes zero difference to me that she didn't know how tall he was. It certainly does not negate all of the other compelling evidence. "One eyewitness didn't realize how tall he was so he's definitely innocent" is not evidence of anything except the eyewitness not being detail-oriented or bad at judging someone's height.

 

[TTF14]

Reasonable doubt can be inferred from Circumstantial Evidence because there can potentially be a number of alternative theories.

Direct evidence makes that almost impossible as its based on fact.

We're not living in an episode of CSI. Circumstantial evidence, according to the law, carries just as much weight as direct evidence, and people have brains, thank God. There definitely could be a hold out or two on the jury though who thinks only CSI type evidence is enough to convict.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Eye witness error. She was a McDonald's employee having a cigarette. She didn't walk over to him with measuring tape. It makes zero difference to me that she didn't know how tall he was. It certainly does not negate all of the other compelling evidence. "One eyewitness didn't realize how tall he was so he's definitely innocent" is not evidence of anything except the eyewitness not being detail-oriented or bad at judging someone's height.

Putting an eye witness on the stand that is going to say your key suspect is average male height as opposed to ‘tall’ is very shoddy preparation from the Prosecution.

Case Witness 101 - Prepare your witnesses appropriately

What evidence do you feel makes him definitely guilty?

Do you trust anything from the Prosecution having seen the Hoodie they presented as ‘evidence’?

He may well be guilty. The state haven't proved it though.

 

[Niner]

Has the jurors started deliberations today? Didn't they start like at 8:30am?
TIA!

 

[Gardenista]

Has the jurors started deliberations today? Didn't they start like at 8:30am?
TIA!

Yes, they started at 830. CTV has the deliberation clock at 4 hrs 25 minutes right now.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

We're not living in an episode of CSI. Circumstantial evidence, according to the law, carries just as much weight as direct evidence, and people have brains, thank God. There definitely could be a hold out or two on the jury though who thinks only CSI type evidence is enough to convict.

I don't watch CSI, so I can't comment on that.

The Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction

What is the Circumstantial Evidence Instruction?
The circumstantial evidence jury instruction tells the jury that in order to convict a defendant based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must not only find that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with defendant's guilt, but also that the evidence is not reasonably consistent with innocence.

For example, California courts instruct juries that: "Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People [through the prosecutor] have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable." (CALCRIM 224.) So, if Larry offers a reasonable, alternate explanation for his blood-soaked clothes, the jury must accept it. But, if Larry suggests that he was covered in blood because he cut himself shaving, the jury may reject that explanation becauseit is not reasonable for a shaving cut to result in so much blood loss.

 

[TTF14]

Putting an eye witness on the stand that is going to say your key suspect is average male height as opposed to ‘tall’ is very shoddy preparation from the Prosecution.

What evidence do you feel makes him definitely guilty?

He may well be guilty. The state haven't proved it though.

• DNA on the car door
• Fiber evidence that matches
• The sweatshirt and hat in the dryer
• The shell casings in the sock
• Gun with missing parts in the freezer
• Him doing a practice run a week prior
• CCTV of his truck....HIS truck
• Rearranging his schedule that morning to "go to the dentist" (and no dentist called to corroborate that story)
• The "RJR" notation (on his practice day) in his planner
• His weird post-it notes, while not evidence of this crime, might point to his state of mind/the way he thinks. They don't point to a normal person's way of thinking, at the very least.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

Verdict in 30 minutes, it's 9:53 CT now

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

• DNA on the car door
• Fiber evidence that matches
• The sweatshirt and hat in the dryer
• The shell casings in the sock
• Gun with missing parts in the freezer
• Him doing a practice run a week prior
• CCTV of his truck....HIS truck
• Rearranging his schedule that morning to "go to the dentist" (and no dentist called to corroborate that story)
• The "RJR" notation (on his practice day) in his planner
• His weird post-it notes, while not evidence of this crime, might point to his state of mind/the way he thinks. They don't point to a normal person's way of thinking, at the very least.

All of this evidence was ‘collected’ from his residence without him being there. I'm not sure how much of that I'd be willing to rely on.

There's nothing to conclusively say it was ‘HIS’ truck either.

 

[TTF14]

All of this evidence was ‘collected’ from his residence without him being there. I'm not sure how much of that I'd be willing to rely on.

There's nothing to conclusively say it was ‘HIS’ truck either.

So you'd say not guilty based on the fact he wasn't present when the evidence was collected, meaning you believe all the cops present were dirty and all of this was planted. What makes you think this way? What would be their motive?

 

[MajorHoople]

Verdict in 30 minutes, it's 9:53 CT now

I'll bet it's guilty.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

I'll bet it's guilty.

I think they will find him guilty too.

 

[TTF14]

I'll bet it's guilty.

Definitely guilty. They are intelligent jurors.

 

[trialobsessive]

Verdict is in so it’s a waiting game to find out. I’d guess it’s going to be guilty.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Definitely guilty. They are intelligent jurors.

How do you know they are intelligent jurors?

We know nothing about any of them.

 

[Gardenista]

I wonder if he will go nuts if he's found guilty. He scares the crap out of me.

 

[TTF14]

How do you know they are intelligent jurors?

We know nothing about any of them.

An assumption I'm making based on the quick verdict that I know will be guilty . They understand the different types of evidence and the evidence itself.