[VRWC_minion]

Its not one by one. Its total. Does all the evidence point to guilt or to some innocent scenario.

You are making the same logical error in thinking that everyone who thinks Westerfield is innocent is making. You have to take all the evidence and testimony as one and then make an inference. You don't make an inference for each piece.

[small_l_libertarian]

But that's the exact opposite of what the jury instructions say. The jurors are instructed that they cannot assume any inference made by the prosecution if the circumstance or fact that it is based upon is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they cannot even consider a "whole picture" type of view until they have first decided that each circumstance supporting that whole picture has been proven. They must start at the same place the "reasonable doubters" among us started. One piece at a time - is it proven? No? - have to throw it away. Yes? - can add it to the "whole picture."

[SilentWitness]

Hi there. Thanks for responding. From reading the instruction as per post 145, my interpretation is to determine the reasonableness of each fact/evidence.

I wonder if jurors have to consult their lawyers for the real interpretation? grin.

[spectre]

Tell me, minion. If you had hired a couple to take care of your children overnight, and they acted EXACTLY like the Van Dams did...and you came home the next morning to one of your precious children GONE without a trace, tell ME that you wouldn't hold those people culpable? "YOU DID WHAT ALL NIGHT LONG?" would be the first words out of your mouth.

You certainly wouldn't have HIRED them to begin with, knowing their history, now would you have?

I'll bet that rage you are feeling toward Westerfield would be redirected to those sitters you hired who LOST one of your kids?

Tell me I'm wrong..

sw

[meadsjn]

You have to take all the evidence and testimony as one and then make an inference. You don't make an inference for each piece.

Here's a repost of the Jury Instructions from mommya in post #145. Please try to read more carefully. The bold type specifically refutes your statement above.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER. HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT PERMITS TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

[Yeti]

You have to take all the evidence and testimony as one and then make an inference.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

The instruction that Mudd was legally obliged to read the jury seems to contradict your assertion. Note the word: "EACH".

[Dave_in_Upland]

You don't make an inference for each piece.

Actually you do consider each piece individually before you include it in the whole, and if the piece does not pass the reasonable douby criteria you discard it and then see if the DA's theory still holds water.

[Krodg]

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

I know you've seen this many times, but I just wanted to post it again on the slight chance you might have your eyes and mind open at the same time.