I know you won't post it, so here's what he said:
"They don't quote her testimony at all in the motion. They don't really need to for a discovery motion IMO, but you can't take it as a verbatim representation.
""I believe it was this person" is suspicion with some degree of uncertainty" is not accurate. The criminal law uses "reasonably believes" as a standard for self-defense force and reads out conscious uncertainty.
More generally, the law permits reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, so there's not a distinction between knowledge and belief when it comes to what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you wake up and you walk outside and the ground is wet and there are puddles in the road, you can reasonably infer it rained from circumstantial evidence. You have no real knowledge that it rained and nothing based on direct evidence. You believe it rained the same way a woman at a bar can put a, b, and c together and believe the identity of who assaulted her based on circumstantial evidence."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125563.html#msg125563and
"It's not. She obviously had some reason to believe it was him, went home, and identified him that night. Eyewitness testimony isn't foolproof, but it's admissible evidence and could support a conviction."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125564.html#msg125564
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
Da Economy
by murphstahoe 2026 Pale Hoes by Custard
Total Members: 142