Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
You are not being very lawyerly about this. That he cried is absolutely probative evidecne of his state of mind. If you were trying this case you would argue it to the jury. How the jury would receive the argument is hard to determine and is one of the reasons assessing guilt based upon this sort of evidence so long after the fact is very difficult. How can we read the circumstances now, so many years later? Did the tears mean guilt or innocence? We are too far removed to know, IMO.
|
You would also present his apparent shock upon learning the news, the lack of any evidence tying him to the massacre directly, etc.
Then you would remind them that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution (those who claim he was directly involved).