Yea, and probably why it was excluded...Wouldn't the towel testimony be hearsay anyways?
There's a lot of exceptions. Without seeing the trial transcript I couldn't say which one was used/allowed in each case.What about the school counsellor that talked the cousin. She was put on the stand wasn't she? Wasn't her whole testimony hearsay?
In all this long winded, keyboard diarrhea are you refuting that the defence's implication is that there was an infatuation component? Because that would be really dumb if you areThis is actually a really valid point. We have irrefutable proof as presented at trial that Avery answered the door in a towel and requested her specifically, which certainly proves infatuation, which would lead to stalking, which is logically going to result in rape, torture, and murder! You know, with all the irrefutable proof presented that that's exactly what happened. It's not like the investigators and/or DA can just tell a half baked story and have it catch on in the media and become a talking point locally. That's just not how things work. They went with the rape allegations because of all the irrefutable proof of it. That's where the evidence led the investigation. It's not like they just put the story out there and then said things to back it up. It was because of EVIDENCE, like him answering the door in a towel and how he specifically requested she come out to take the pictures. Pretty sure Jive is right on this one. It's pretty obvious the evidence indicates he raped her. I mean, answering the door in a towel. That isn't at all disputed. That's a fact! And it's the first step toward raping, torturing, murdering someone!
It looks like he contacted Auto Trader and gave them the sister's name and phone number as it was her car. The "anonymous" part was him dialing *67 before calling her twice before she arrived. He then called her 1x after she supposedly left, but didn't dial *67.Wait, did he contact her anonymously or did he contact her with his sister's information because it was his sister's car?
Mind boggling? I'm an engineer, you know I deal in black and white.Maybe it's just your imprecise language that gets me all OCD...
but if you believe him to be guilty, then you believe he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you believe him not guilty, you think the state has not met their burden of proof for guilt.
To say you would vote not guilty but believe him guilty is a little mind boggling.
You believe he did it, but at some standard of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt... ? Right?
You just contradicted yourself. In epic fashion.Mind boggling? I'm an engineer, you know I deal in black and white.
I believe he did it but I haven't seen enough physical evidence to send away a man for life based on that. I've heard lawyers hate engineers on the jury - is this true?
I was asked what the implied motive was. Try to keep upNo he's saying you're a moron for thinking infatuation is enough evidence to convince you he raped and murdered her. There really isn't even clear evidence he was, in fact, infatuated with her. It's all circumstantial.
What do you mean? I'm not sending away a man for murder based on what I feel he did. I need proof before I make that call. However, in my head I can go "yeah im fairly certain this man did this."You just contradicted yourself. In epic fashion.
We won't present findings based on feels data, that doesn't mean we don't form theories in our head based on them. I can easily look at what's presented and feel that he did it; however, I wouldn't be able to present a guilty verdict based on my feels. That's all I'm meaning to say.A person who sees in black and white wouldn't say to themselves "yea I'm fairly certain he did this" while simultaneously believing there is no evidence. That's feels data. Engineers and scientists do not deal in feels data.
You're fighting me on my wording. I am in the gray area right now - I can't give a verdict unless it's black and white.What you're describing is what everyone refers to as "gray area". In other words, not at all Black and White.