So what if you want to claim Dunn's self-serving statement as "evidence". The three boys in the Durango claimed no shotgun was in the vehicle and a witness at the shooting scene did not see a shotgun from the Durango pointing at Dunn which was towards the direction of vision of the witness. And then at another location by the loop parking lot two witnesses, brother and sister, testified they didn't see the boys with any weapon.
So, six evidence against your one, you loose, Excon.
Like I said the brother was standing at different location from her and watched the men got out of the Durango (which was pointed at an angle towards them) until both men got back in. The part he didn't see was when the men reverse their way back to the gas station. So, he didn't see the two men ditching anything or stashing anything. If they did, the shot gun would be either laying in plain sight on the parking lot or still in the Durango which would be found by the police when they came by and impounded the vehicle while all the time witnesses were there watching and helping to revive Davis after pulling him out of the vehicle to the ground to perform CPR.
You claimed what you have "pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist."
So, tell me where is your circumstantial evidence? It couldn't be the two witnesses at the Loop parking lot, could it? Because they didn't see anything being ditched or stashed, let alone a shotgun and you yourself insisted they couldn't see much of anything, not that they saw or thought they saw something that looked like a gun or shotgun.
See your bind there?
So, you can't answer my question claiming because no one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement? That's a very pathetic claim.
It's more like there was no other independent witness beside Dunn who could testify to seeing the boys with a gun or a shotgun to support your argument, that's why. Why then don't you just be honest and simply said so instead of leading us into a wild goose chase for nothing?
Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-12-14 at 09:04 PM.
In the illustration John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
An object itself is neither direct or circumstantial evidence. Weapons, guns, cricket bat, disposed bloody clothing, etc, found after the fact or disposed into the lake after the fact, are simply part and parcel of circumstantial evidence, not direct. Direct means a witness has to witness with his or her own eyes the perpetrator using such weapon or object to cause fatal harm directly to the deceased victim when the event occurred.
Therefore direct means direct observation of an event by a witness. Circumstantial means evidence gathered together as presumptive or inferential conclusion to an event.
Which part of above don't you understand?
Why are you being so difficult to admit that you are plain wrong?
And why are you wasting so much time and energy on these two witnesses whom you claimed could not see what happened on the other side and did not have eyes on the two men the entire time (even though they had during the crucial moment) when they didn't see anything of a weapon let alone a shotgun either with the persons of the two men or being ditched or stash away by them in anyway? How are their testimonies in any way shape or form support your contention that the two men had the shotgun but was ditched or stashed? Where is your evidence to that?
Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.
So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere? But, never mind, Excon, I know you can't answer that question without putting yourself in a bind. For crying out loud, I just have to put it there to remind you of your predicament.
Moderator's Warning: Dolphinocean and Excon, stop the baiting and personal comments. Please stick to the topic, which is not each other.