Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
The damage argument doesn't fly for me, at least not for first degree murder, the possibility of an accident followed by panic is strong enough to keep me from getting beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
The weakest part of the Crown's case is that they couldn't say how the victims died except that they drowned. The judge actually told the jury at the beginning of the trial that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence weight the same in our judicial system. So I agree that the Crown built their case on a lot of circumstantial evidence. But if the jury abide by, and they should, the judge's direction at the beginning of the trial, these circumstantial evidence is actually quite powerful.
At the end, the jury will have to decide if the defense story of a joy ride gone wrong at 2 am with 4 people, coupled with the accidental ramming by the son was actually an accident or a premeditated murder.