Building a case... (pizzagate)

submitted ago by lawyer4justice

Lurker from original pizzagate on Reddit...

Coming from a lawyer... I want to help focus this sub on building a case. If not interested, then i guess the post will just die out. I will ask questions and play devils advocate to help form a case (just like real prosecutors).

To make this on-topic, it seems as if the seth rich killing could blow pizzagate wide open, if proven true. That being said, here are my thoughts... As of right now, everything is based in the court of public opinion. For that, the standard of proof (by how much someone would need to prove something ie beyond 50/50 vs beyond a shadow of a doubt) seems extremely high because at first glance, the DNC involvement in a murder seems unlikely and unreasonable to most people because they don't WANT to believe it.

Moving it over to the criminal prosecution world, the standard is much lower to begin. In order for police to obtain warrants and make arrests, you need to show Probable Cause. Probable cause is a "fair probability." It doesn't even have to be better than 50/50. Probable Cause can be based on hearsay but must be reliable evidence. An anonymous source CAN be used, but only if reliable. For example, an anon source says Steve did it, with no other information, then that is not reliable. However if anon source says Steve did it and included facts that are verifiable and not of public knowledge yet, then that would be reliable.

so let's start... Is it a fair probability that Podesta was involved? If so, what makes it a fair probability? Is it a fair probability that Dr. Sava was involved? If so, what makes it a fair probability?

If you can establish probable cause and then show the DC police are not acting, that's a whole different potential crime and more evidence of the ultimate truth. If there is a cover up by DC police, you might want to find out if it was normal for each officer that reported to the scene to be there and if there are any complaints against any of them and if that was their beat. Also, what is their protocol (from their actual training, not what you suspect it to be) and did they follow it?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

lawyer4justice ago

Direct vs circumstantial evidence: Direct - I saw it rain. Circumstantial - i dont see it rain, however, i can infer that it rained from the facts. guy walks in with wet umbrella, forecast calls for rain, no other water sources near by. Legally, both are weighted equally.

UglyTruth ago

Direct evidence is unequivocal, circumstantial evidence is open to interpretation, and interpretations vary. Re your example, weather forecasts are not 100% accurate and the wet umbrella could be due to the guy getting splashed by a car driving through a puddle. At common law inferences must be consistent with reason, but civil law suffers from political reasoning, i.e. picking the argument which bests supports the desired conclusion.

lawyer4justice ago

Direct evidence has its pitfalls, too. With direct it is all based on whether you believe the speaker. Circumstantial is what it is, your interpretation can be different , though. Just remember, DNA is merely.circumstantial.