re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case

quote:

---

What if they went to four locations and didn’t show all the video?

---

If they went to 3 in the video then they went to those three. I haven’t said the video shows everything.

quote:

---

What if they went to one location twice and it was hard to tell with the video quality and darkness?

---

if they went to two in the video then they went to two.

quote:

---

I saw the Reggie’s video and it appeared to me that she collapsed and they dragged her. Is that my opinion, or is it a fact?

---

You’d just be wrong.

quote:

---

if they went to two in the video then they went to two.

---

Did they go to 2 or 3?

You said it was a fact they went to 3.

quote:

---

You’d just be wrong.

---

Well, well. Now we are getting somewhere.

The video shows what the video shows. Nak is either relaying it honestly or he’s lying. When it comes to her requesting and then going to 3 different places, it would be extremely difficult to manipulate that. If you want to play devils advocate, fine. But like I said before, if you have this standard for all of the evidence then you can’t believe anything in the affidavit either even the BAC since you didn’t see the result for yourself. Did the investigator misread a print out? An email? Did a staff member? How can you trust them???

quote:

---

Nak is either relaying it honestly or he’s lying.

---

Or he’s just wrong, as you claim I am about the Reggie’s video.

I gave you several scenarios where he could be wrong.

quote:

---

The video shows what the video shows.

---

Well yea. But videos can be interpreted, especially low quality cell phone video in a car in the dark.

You apparently trust Nak’s video interpretation enough to label it as fact, but not mine.

quote:

---

I gave you several scenarios where he could be wrong.

---

If he could be wrong via an honest mistake as your scenarios suggest, then you can’t trust the BAC either because someone could have made an honest mistake there too.

quote:

---

But like I said before, if you have this standard for all of the evidence then you can’t believe anything in the affidavit either even the BAC since you didn’t see the result for yourself. Did the investigator misread a print out? An email? Did a staff member? How can you trust them???

---

You’re comparing a 3rd-party interpretation of a cell phone video with scientific evidence?

I’m sure the defense will argue that the BAC is wrong, but I would consider it factual unless proven otherwise.

You’re comparing apples and llamas.

I understand that.

What I'm saying, when using the term evidence in a criminal legal sense, does that not include known facts (i.e. times, BAC, etc) and testimony (eyewitnesses, experts, etc.)? Thus making evidence both facts and testimony. During discovery, they usually give you the facts of the evidence against you. Not sure if it happens During discovery as well, but during trial, that's when witnesses get on the stand and tell their testimony, that's still considered evidence, either for or against a defendant, isn't it?

They are different, obviously, but when speaking legally, does evidence not include both?

Just asking a question. It's not a big deal.

quote:

---

If he could be wrong via an honest mistake as your scenarios suggest, then you can’t trust the BAC either because someone could have made an honest mistake there too.

---

Bro, you need to take Nak’s dick out of your mouth.

Nakamoto will not be testifying in court about what he saw on the video. His opinion is not evidence, proof, facts, or anything. Nothing he does or says has any bearing on this case, except to potentially sway public opinion.

The video will be shown and the jury or judge will form their own opinions. Elevating his news broadcast to the level of BAC analysis, and attempting to compare the two is fricking moronic.

If Nak is wrong, the BAC can be wrong? What a strange sentiment.

Of course the BAC can be wrong. I think it will be treated as factual unless otherwise proven wrong.

So this whole time we have been saying the same thing?

Motherfricker.

Ok.

What you are calling evidence, I would more broadly call proof.

Proof is relevant when it makes a fact at issue more or less probable.

Factual proof can be witness testimony or physical evidence.

—Testimony is just that, a witness testifying to something the witness saw or perceived. So, for example, the girl following her in the video might testify that Madi was lurching, slurring, and reeked of liquor. Fact testimony has to be based on personal knowledge.

—Physical evidence can be videos, photos, or things.

Opinion proof is what you would call expert testimony. It is the testimony of a witness who by experience, training or education has specialized knowledge and is applying it in an accepted way. So, for example, a defense expert may opine that no one could jog with a .319 BAC.

There are also presumptions, lay opinion, and stipulations, but put that aside for now.

The jury will be told that they are the judges of the facts. (They’ll be told a lot of other stuff too.). They’ll also be told they can draw inferences from the proof. So, for example, if there is a video showing Madi looking just fine when being dropped off, the jury could infer, if it chooses, that she was not too drunk to have consented to sex shortly before. Or, the jury might credit opinion testimony that the sex injuries were very painful and infer that she could not have consented.

In the end, the jury will probably be asked these yes/no questions:

Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the sexual encounter with the defendant, Madison Brooks was incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause?

If you answered yes, do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or should have known of Madison Brooks’ incapacity?

That’s a very basic explanation of how proof (or evidence) works.