Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
You are making a lot of comments in this thread that are demonstrably wrong and this is another one. At law, changing your own story means you made a prior inconsistent statement, and it is evidence as to your credibility. In general, and in this case in particular, it can be used to impeach a witnesses testimony at trial. At the first trial Knox was impeached on several fronts, her prior inconsistent statement being only one of them.
|
I would hazard a guess that my understanding of the law of evidence is at least as good as yours.
It is true that prior inconsistent statements can go to credibility. But that was precisely my point: it doesn't, at least not automatically, prove guilt.
So she changed her statement. People do, for lots of reasons. If that, without more, were enough to prove guilt in Canada being a Crown would be the easiest job ever.
I don't know what other evidence was tendered. But to me, a prior inconsistent statement in the context of what sounds likens complete absence of physical evidence tying her to the scene is pretty weak.
And in that context, saying "yeah, but she changed her story" is not evidence of her guilt. It's merely, as I said, innuendo. It's inviting the trier of fact to make an inference about her guilt that is not supported by the evidence available.