3 ms·
> Perhaps interesting on it's own. But only if incidental and used to support stronger facts. That's not really how any of this works. It's not the defense tha
by pdpi 8y ago
> Perhaps interesting on it's own. But only if incidental and used to support stronger facts.
That's not really how any of this works. It's not the defense that has to "support stronger facts", that's the prosecution's job. The existence of the metrocard evidence pushes the prosecution's burden correspondingly higher.
Now, here's a few ways this could've played out:
Scenario A is that a random guy with a couple of drug priors is actually trying to keep his life together, leaves work, goes from work to a place to cash out his pay check, goes hanging out with his girlfriend. He somehow ends up wrongfully accused, possibly because of his priors.
Scenario B is that the guy was walking around town, randomly ran into the victim (while presumably having been snitched on by said victim), and, after a verbal confrontation, murders the presumptive snitch.
Scenario C is that the brothers had just heard the guy snitched on them, they're fuming, and, as a spur of the moment thing, go on the prowl for the snitch, and kill him.
Given the existence of the Metrocard evidence, B and C are off the table. Instead, you have scenario D:
Random guy with a couple of drug priors but no prior history of violent crime plans and executes a homicide, devises a sophisticated alibi that has him at reasonable locations at reasonable times while biking to the crime scene and back. This perp was sophisticated enough that there is no evidence pointing at him other than eyewitness testimony, yet he was still sloppy enough to confront the victim in public.
Scenarios B and C were fairly run of the mill situations, and eyewitness testimony might've been enough to clinch it, but D is the "this shit only happens on TV" type of crazy, and requires a correspondingly high amount of supporting evidence. This leaves us with A being the overwhelmingly likely alternative.
- metrofab 8y agoSo why do people get shot at all? Why do people get shot over arguments, out on the street, in public? Where do the guns come from? How is it, that the guns land right in the hands of the people willing to use them? How are those guns floating around, carefully concealed, from purchase to grudge match? How does the grudge match start? Who snitches about what at all? Clearly someone got shot, and no one knows who did it. No one knows anything? No one knows what happened. Based on that line of reasoning, maybe it's safe to conclude that no one got shot at all. Except someone did get shot. And whoever did it managed to sail right through all of the gaps you've outlined, and disappear. How did that happen? Who would be motivated to operate against someone disrespecting them in a convenience store argument? Why taunt anybody in a convenience store? Much less about authenticity or being a tattle tale. Would you shoot someone for getting snarky with you? A random person at a deli? If you were the kind of person who roamed the streets with a gun, you'd have your eyes in front of you about getting picked up with it. Even getting caught with a gun inside NYC city limits is a serious thing. So to carry one around, to know where it is represents a degree of premeditation. Were the victim and the assailant just strangers? The assailant was so chaotic that this is a senseless crime against a stranger during some seconds-long encounter, and yet all so careful, that no one can figure out who dunnit, no one knows how the gun showed up, or why the sudden outburst? Platonic ideals are great, but hang around some of these delis some time. See what it's like to mingle.
- namblor 8y agoCouldn't it just as readily be racist, crooked cops rolling up some local thugs to satisfy their own motives? What's to stop them from killing one and blaming another? Without evidence, this idea is just as valid as the theory you propose.
- csin 8y agoAre you implying. The judge was wrong to exonerate Jason Jones? Because the evidence of a MetroCard and photograph are "flimsy"?
- chumway 8y agoExcept why does any of this make sense? Just because it can't be pinned on anyone, it has to be them? Why should it be a slam dunk conviction simply by process of elimination? We don't know the witness or even the victim, by way of this article. Who were they?