Direct evidence would be the testimony of a witness at the crime scene of a crime in progress who directly witnessed one of the boys in the Durango pointing the barrel of shotgun through the window which directly supports Dunn's claim of such.
Originally Posted by Excon
Circumstantial Evidence, however, is any evidence that is not direct. Whatever happened after the fact and in a different location as witnessed by any witnesses at that location will not be a direct evidence in terms of supporting defendant's claim of a shotgun pointing at him that caused him fear for his life. Therefore, evidence of a gun, IF there was such, at that different location does not necessary prove that Davis was in possession of that gun and used it to point at Dunn. The defense, however, could certainly use that to indirectly "imply" he did, but that would be circumstantial evidence, not direct.
The two witnesses at the adjacent parking lot who saw the Durango "sculling" towards them (that's how one of the two witnesses described), witnessed only what transpired after the fact of the shooting at a different location and therefore they did not witness what transpired when the crime was in progress in the other location where the shooting occurred.
Throughout all that she testified she did not see anything or weapon in or around their persons and she also did not see them removed or threw away anything from the vehicle. She testified she knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see one. Likewise her brother also testified he knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see any. She also testified that the two men did not leave the immediate area of their vehicle. She guesstimate that they were probably out of their vehicle for about a minute and then got back in and reversed their vehicle back to the Gate gas station.
As reported by The Attorney Depot:
But LeBlanc, who was backed up by her brother, Christopher LeBlanc, testified she saw Stornes and Thompson the whole time they were in the parking lot, and they never took a weapon out of the car. "I never saw anything taken out of that car," she said.
The only witness, who was right there at the Gate gas station and had just walked out of the convenient store, had a direct view towards the back window of the Durango. He did not claim to see any weapon let alone a shotgun. He testified that just before the shooting he heard Dunn said, "You are not going to talk to me like that."
That's evidence of his pride being at risk of being hurt and not his life at risk of fatal harm. Now, that's the direct evidence for you.
But, all these argument about direct vs circumstantial evidence are just pointless because we know very well that the two witnesses who witnessed the Durango speeding towards them testified in court that they did not see any thing, let alone a shotgun, stashed in or removed from the Durango or threw out when the two boys got out of the vehicle. So, how does that even constitute any evidence at all that there was a gun in the Durango?
In fact, the two witnesses actually provided evidence to support prosecution's contention that the men did not stash anything into the SUV or ditch anything whatsoever from the vehicle, let alone a weapon or shotgun, that night. And the court testimonies of the brother-sister witnesses are evidence for the prosecution whereas your brutish claim that there exists a gun is just purely forced bs bogus concoction devoid of any support from court evidence whatsoever but in fact your baseless claim was in direct contradiction to what had been testified to in court.
Now, let me asked you once again, where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?
Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!