3 ms·

For a civil case, probably. But for a criminal case, the threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plenty of reasonable doubt in there.

ImJamal 2y ago
[flagged]
- alistairSH 2y ago
  That’s not the way our justice system is supposed to work. We don’t require proof of innocence. We require (or are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something? Who admits to killing somebody while having their property in their possession if they didn't do it? The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but adding on the possession of the murder victim's property just pushes it further.
    - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
      No, some witnesses testified that he allegedly confessed. This is called hearsay. There is an exception to hearsay when it comes to confessions and that's the reason the testimony was admitted during the trial. A hearsay confession is very different than a confession made to the public, the police, the prosecutor, in court or during a deposition. The witnesses received benefits from their testimonies and this again leads to reasonable doubt. > The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt How can you be so sure the confessions actually happened?
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        The girlfriend heard it directly from the accused and testified to that fact. It wasn't hearsay. Despite claims to the contrary, she didn't request any money for the testimony. Why do people keep ignoring the girlfriend's testimony?
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      He allegedly admitted. To paid snitches. Who were also known liars and criminals.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        His girlfriend apparently did not ask for any money so she was a paid snitch though?
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial evidence. He might have come across the property, he might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  The burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not obligated to provide anything in his defense.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something?

ImJamal 2y ago

[flagged]

alistairSH 2y ago
That’s not the way our justice system is supposed to work. We don’t require proof of innocence. We require (or are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something? Who admits to killing somebody while having their property in their possession if they didn't do it? The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but adding on the possession of the murder victim's property just pushes it further.
  - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
    No, some witnesses testified that he allegedly confessed. This is called hearsay. There is an exception to hearsay when it comes to confessions and that's the reason the testimony was admitted during the trial. A hearsay confession is very different than a confession made to the public, the police, the prosecutor, in court or during a deposition. The witnesses received benefits from their testimonies and this again leads to reasonable doubt. > The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt How can you be so sure the confessions actually happened?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      The girlfriend heard it directly from the accused and testified to that fact. It wasn't hearsay. Despite claims to the contrary, she didn't request any money for the testimony. Why do people keep ignoring the girlfriend's testimony?
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    He allegedly admitted. To paid snitches. Who were also known liars and criminals.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      His girlfriend apparently did not ask for any money so she was a paid snitch though?
maximinus_thrax 2y ago
He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial evidence. He might have come across the property, he might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?
I_am_uncreative 2y ago
The burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not obligated to provide anything in his defense.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something?