Quote:
Originally Posted by darklord700
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.
|
It's not a matter of the weight given to the evidence, it's what it says. Direct evidence gives you a direct answer/tie, circumstantial evidence gets you a possible answer/tie but also leaves the door open to a variety of other explanations. These cases often come down to the performance of the lawyers, hopefully both sides were represented competently as opposed to the all too common situation where the crown attorneys are overworked and underpaid and unable to perform at their best because of it.
I'm certainly not saying that it means they didn't do it, but when there's that much weight being placed on circumstantial evidence I'd be pretty hesitant to place a bet on a guilty verdict.