Allusonz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 17
With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.
With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.
True
I have often thought that either the Motivational Report to be the most inept piece of reasoning for a conviction or:
It was a brilliant document which set up the ability for the ability to overturn the convictions.
I flip back and forth on this theory of mine constantly