Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
What are you talking about? All evidence is allowed to be challenged but the jury should not be jumping to conclusions based on speculation. What is confusing to everyone about this?
This is your post earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
You don't understand how this works. You are correct that the prosecution hold the burden of proof because they are the ones making the claim. Their claim is supposed to be based on evidence, they present the evidence and the jury has to determine if that evidence meets the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. This doubt that they reach is not supposed to be based on guesswork or speculation, because that is not a doubt that is reasonable.
So if the prosecutor shows blood in a rav 4 that matches SA for example, it is unreasonable to doubt it came from anywhere other than his body unless there is evidence that can prove this. Someone saw the cops planting it and testifies to this under oath for example. If the person finds the testimony credible, they can reach reasonable doubt that the blood came from his body.
Using the blood in the Rav 4 as an example:
We agree that the police have motive to plant evidence in this case
We agree that they have the means to plant this evidence
We agree that they have opportunity to plant this evidence
We have a specific suspect, Lenk.
We have the suspect lying about his "alibi"
Note that many a defendant has been convicted on similar facts
Then on top of this we have several other pieces of evidence found by the same suspect under less than ideal circumstances.
We have prosecutors lying to the public about manitiwoc's involvement in the case.
We have questionablelab procedures
We have questionable prosecutorial ethics.
Amidst so much circumstantial evidence, it's outrageous to maintain that thinking evidence was planted is just baseless speculation.
I take issue with the use of the word speculation in those jury instructions. Barring getting caught in the act or on video, the entire point of a case like this is to use bits of evidence to speculate on what happened and who was involved, forming a narrative of the crime.
Speculation is a necessary part of the process. Neither the prosecution nor the jury should be engaging in BASELESS speculation, and that is what is meant by speculation in the context of those jury instructions. In the context given this is obvious, but it warrants clarifying because some people in this thread continue to deliberately misunderstand plain English.