Well said. I find the number of freepers that can’t follow this logic disturbing. With circumstantial evidence, one must consider ‘circumstances’. These sets of circumstances determine the probability or improbability of an event or ‘chain’ of events. In other words, the circumstances ARE the proof. This silly notion that the state did not ‘prove’ it’s case is merely the jury choosing to accept the highly improbable over the highly probable. If someone shows me an object that appears to be an apple, I would find it very probable that it is indeed an apple. While I may not be able to bite into it for absolute ‘proof’, I would find it highly improbable that is, in fact, an orange.
Good analogy that should be presented to every jury.
So well analogized! For some reason we get these juries that want to believe the far-fetched and ridiculous over the obvious. As my daughter put it. . . . even if you had a video tape of the perp during the commission of the crime, the defense would convince some bozo(s) that their eyes were deceiving them.
Even if all the jury duty avoiders were to step up to the plate, jury selection would eliminate much of those who understand what constitutes guilt and embrace the criminal sympathizers. I think we ought to do away with screening the prospective jurors. Pre-qualify the possibles and then draw them at random; no input by either side.