Re: Back To The Shoe Argument
[ QUOTE ]
"No. The jury should acquit no matter what unless the footprint is so large or small (or have any other kind of unique identification marking) that there's no other person in the area who could *reasonably* have it, thus removing the reasonable doubt."
That's just wrong. And even the courts realize that, since they allow prosecutors to argue, when they have several pieces of independent but not by themselves totally damning evidence, that the PARLAY is damning. I think they may use different words though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay your point is taken, but I am still skeptical of your premise that the footprint was just found after a likely lengthy period of time between the crime scene investigation and the end of the trial, and also that it was "definitely" the murderer's. How does something as obvious to look for as a footprint just go unnoticed? And even if it really did go unnoticed, how could one be sure that it was even there all along, and not a new footprint? If I was investigating and I saw a footprint at a crime scene weeks or months after the investigation, my first guess would be that someone probably steped there recently. I just don't see how a footprint could be "overlooked". Now sure it may be that it was barely detectable and you needed some advanced science to identify it and map it out, but the trial would never have reached its near conclusion without the footprint, if the prosecution thought it such a damning piece of evidence. The only thing I can think of is if this hypothetical scenario you propose is an allegory for a broader concept or idea, but if so then I don't know what that is. Although I didn't read the whole thread only the OP.
|