Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial
but please discontinue making this bogus claim.
The only bogus claim is yours.
You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.
1. You clearly are confused and not understanding what you are reading. I said there is circumstantial evidence that suggests the gun did exist.
Not once have I said it was proven to have existed. There is a big difference in what you are falsely saying I said, and what I actually said.
So stop making bogus claims.
2. Where did you ask me to provided anything that I hadn't already provided? Or is this just another of your bogus claims?
First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -
Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
You clearly need to pay attention to, and start understanding what you are reading.
There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.
Wrong on all counts.
1. No one said it was proven.
2. The witness did not change what he said. It appeared to him that the individual was trying to stash something. So that is another false claim you have made. You taking the following exchange and twisting it to mean he withdrew his claim is absurdity at best.
"Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.
"Correct," the man said.
"And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.
"Correct," the man said.
There is no withdrawal of his claim that it appeared to him to be stashing or looking for something.
And secondly, it was established by his 911 call that it was
dark enough not to be able to be certain of the drivers hair style (just long), and on cross that he was not observing the guys in the red Durango the whole time.
So any suggestion that
he would have seen anything thrown out of the vehicle is ridiculous.
So I would suggest you stop with your bogus claims.
Police said the teens pulled out of the gas station toward The Loop, got out, and then reversed back to the gas station.
"The vehicle was either observed by witnesses or impounded by police, so anything in that vehicle would have still been in that vehicle or probably still be in that vehicle, and it's been combed through," Phillips said.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Besides the police getting things wrong, like stating it was 90 seconds the Durango was gone, when the time is more likely over 6 minutes, the police are not witnesses to what happened.
Hmmm? 6 minutes doing what?
6 minutes that Davis laid dying in the back while they didn't even call 911. But the driver did call his aunt who later came into the area.
Puh-lease!
The circumstantial evidence is there, and suggestive like I said.
The facts win again, so again, I would suggest you stop with your bogus claims.