Monday, January 28, 2013
I want to keep this short because I am enjoying and learning from the lively discussion and the opportunity to participate as the spirit moves me.
Special thanks to Whonoze for his video and I must say that I agree with his theory that the defendant approached Trayvon from the south. Not at all sure, however, that he went that far south before heading north on the dog walk toward the T.
I want to restate what I have said in the past about the difference between what the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt versus proving every conceivable detail that happened that tragic night. The defendant is the only living person who knows what happened that night and he has chosen to lie about everything except getting out of his truck and shooting Trayvon. He has no reason to lie unless telling the truth would convict him of murder. His lies demonstrate conscious awareness of guilt and a desire to avoid being found guilty. If I were a juror, that would be all I would need to know to vote guilty.
People have presented different theories regarding the unknown details, but there is no need for us to all agree on one theory. Basically, I think all of them pertain to facts that the prosecution has no obligation to prove or disprove in order to convict the defendant of second degree murder. As much as we would like to know everything that happened, we are unlikely to ever know every detail. That’s why the focus of every trial is on the elements that must be proven, which party has the burden of proof, and the definition of that burden of proof.
The burden in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and doubts about facts that do not need to be proven are not reasonable doubts.
We can debate whether that is a good or a bad way to determine guilt or innocence, but there is no debate regarding whether that is the way our system is designed to work.
Two Sides to a Story said,
“I also think we shouldn’t get obsessive about our particular opinion in the threads – it just fills the space with unnecessary noise. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see a high level of data to noise rather than the other way around. I think it’s sufficient to voice one’s pet theory once in a thread and perhaps reply once or twice to communicate with another commenter, but insisting everyone see it your way over and over gets tedious. It’s OKAY if people disagree with the video and your pet theory. Perhaps when you insist on a particular viewpoint, it’s YOU that is unable to grasp another theory.”
I agree with her statement and I urge all of us not to fall into the trap of failing to see the forest for the trees.