Except they're still innocent while they're on the stand, so the "but they did do it" wouldn't (shouldn't, at least) come into play.
Granted, if they were pretty adament about not doing anything throughout the course of the proceedings, and stuck to that even in their post-findings address to the court (having been found guilty), then that would demonstrate a lack of remorse, which would be taken into account during the decision of punishment.
But if all we're talking about is an "I didn't do it" during the actual arrest, then... I mean, I can't imagine there are a lot of times when someone says "It was me, it was all me, I confess to everything" while they're being cuffed lol.
Looch’s story was nothing happened. He was just there minding his own business and then he was shocked that the police showed up. So he has to maintain that story if he takes the stand otherwise his credibility is quite easily attacked. So when they show the pictures of the injuries he had to say “nothing happened” and when they show the broken lamp he has to say “not sure how that broke”. There was a lot of things he could have said that do not include “I did it”. His version of events is that nothing happened, the entire incident is made up.
The Following User Says Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
Except they're still innocent while they're on the stand, so the "but they did do it" wouldn't (shouldn't, at least) come into play.
Granted, if they were pretty adament about not doing anything throughout the course of the proceedings, and stuck to that even in their post-findings address to the court (having been found guilty), then that would demonstrate a lack of remorse, which would be taken into account during the decision of punishment.
But if all we're talking about is an "I didn't do it" during the actual arrest, then... I mean, I can't imagine there are a lot of times when someone says "It was me, it was all me, I confess to everything" while they're being cuffed lol.
Of course it comes into play. Presumption of innocence is what you go in with. Then you tell your story if you get on the stand. If that story is inconsistent with your prior statement it affects your credibility. A judge or jury is entitled to reject testimony if it lacks credibility.
So now, if he changes his story from, for example, "nothing happened" to "we had a fight and both people were physical" the next question is "why did you lie to the police" and the third question is "well, which story should we believe, or is none of it true"?
Looch’s story was nothing happened. He was just there minding his own business and then he was shocked that the police showed up. So he has to maintain that story if he takes the stand otherwise his credibility is quite easily attacked. So when they show the pictures of the injuries he had to say “nothing happened” and when they show the broken lamp he has to say “not sure how that broke”. There was a lot of things he could have said that do not include “I did it”. His version of events is that nothing happened, the entire incident is made up.
That's a lot to glean from reports stating "when he answered the door and stated “nothing happened” and provided no explanation for the incident."
The alleged victim also has some complications around initially stating Lucic choked her, and then saying otherwise when police responded.
Like anything this is probably a lot more storied and complicated than what's currently in the news. However, it's pretty clear that something happened and Lucic will need to account for it.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The alleged victim also has some complications around initially stating Lucic choked her, and then saying otherwise when police responded.
Like anything this is probably a lot more storied and complicated than what's currently in the news. However, it's pretty clear that something happened and Lucic will need to account for it.
Let’s not allow facts to get in the way of collective internet outrage. We’ve already made up our mind that there are never nuances in what’s reported in the media.
The Following User Says Thank You to bluejays For This Useful Post:
The alleged victim also has some complications around initially stating Lucic choked her, and then saying otherwise when police responded.
Like anything this is probably a lot more storied and complicated than what's currently in the news. However, it's pretty clear that something happened and Lucic will need to account for it.
Well if nothing happened it follows that anything someone says happened is made up. Those two are mutually exclusive, one cannot have something happen and have that thing not happen at the same time.
Well if nothing happened it follows that anything someone says happened is made up. Those two are mutually exclusive, one cannot have something happen and have that thing not happen at the same time.
Right. If his initial story was: "yes something happened and this is what it was", then he stands a better chance later on if he relies on the same story.
If he says "nothing happened" then a later story that something happened but not his fault, then he has to explain. If you are in court and you have to explain, it's a problem.
It is weird that she said she was choked but then said she was not choked. If too bad no one else was there to witness. It's just a "he said", "she said". In my experience, witness statements are quite reliable in situations like this.
Well if nothing happened it follows that anything someone says happened is made up. Those two are mutually exclusive, one cannot have something happen and have that thing not happen at the same time.
Or the more likely scenario is that he said that in the moment to minimize police involvement, and also probably to minimize responsibility. Not saying that it was right or justified, but it's not going to be drawn along the lines you're talking about.
It's not rational to look at it through the all or nothing lens.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
The alleged victim also has some complications around initially stating Lucic choked her, and then saying otherwise when police responded.
Like anything this is probably a lot more storied and complicated than what's currently in the news. However, it's pretty clear that something happened and Lucic will need to account for it.
Pretty normal for an abused women to defend the husband after the fact
__________________
GFG
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
It is weird that she said she was choked but then said she was not choked. If too bad no one else was there to witness. It's just a "he said", "she said". In my experience, witness statements are quite reliable in situations like this.
Except that’s not exactly accurate. The report said there was a 911 call reporting that he tried to “choke” her. It never said who made the call. Later, the police asked her if Lucic tried to “strangle” her and she said no.
A. She might not have made the 911 call. We don’t know who was in the house. We know there were kids there for a sleepover.
B. She might differentiate between being choked for a moment and being strangled.
C. The 911 dispatcher may have gotten the message wrong if it was hurried/crying/etc.
Anyway, it only matters if it goes to court and he takes the stand. I suspect this will end in a plea bargain.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
It is weird that she said she was choked but then said she was not choked. If too bad no one else was there to witness. It's just a "he said", "she said". In my experience, witness statements are quite reliable in situations like this.
Like anything this is probably a lot more storied and complicated than what's currently in the news. However, it's pretty clear that something happened and Lucic will need to account for it.
That’s not how criminal justice works. The state has to prove its case; The defendant doesn’t need to account for anything.
That’s not how criminal justice works. The state has to prove its case; The defendant doesn’t need to account for anything.
And when they have her say something happened, if he says nothing, the evidence is 100% one way. If he gets on the stand, his credibility will be challenged based on inconsistent statements. His best bet at that point would be to say he gaslit the cops because he was hoping they'd just go away.
Pretty normal for an abused women to defend the husband after the fact
Absolutely. GioforPM gave an outline of possibilities that could account for discrepancies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
That’s not how criminal justice works. The state has to prove its case; The defendant doesn’t need to account for anything.
That's not quite true though, is it? At minimum, if Lucic is of the defense that nothing significantly criminal occurred he will have to account for the physical and observable evidence (broken lamp, reddish marks, alleged intoxication, etc).
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
May I just add again that there's almost no chance this makes it to a trial. Charges dropped, alternative measures, plea bargain, etc. are all far more likely.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
