[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."

[L,TOWM]

Keep fighting. Apparrently there are some here that need education in the US justice system--particularly what being a jurror is all about.

If we can keep educating, maybe we an avoid Eastern European style courts in the USA for a while longer...

[VRWC_minion]

But that's the exact opposite of what the jury instructions say

You are making an assumption that doesn't agree with the closing arguments. The unchallenged explanation on this was made in various ways by Feldman. He did it by expressing it and he did it by two example, a rope and the cheater at 21.

His explanation as well as his examples were never challenged by either the judge or the defense.

Assuming this is the approach to be made to the evidence, would you arrive at a different conclusion ? I think any reasonable person would have to.