Originally posted by Teallaura
View Post
Even so, they have direct knowledge of what they themselves have experienced. Direct knowledge refers to any knowledge that is relevant to the proceedings. Most witnesses won't have direct knowledge of the actual charge but had witnessed something that could assist in determining the charge.
A lot of murders apparently don't have any eye witnesses to the actual killing but someone may have seen the suspect purchasing a similar weapon used in the murder, someone may have seen the suspect drag a large bag into his car, someone may have seen the suspect burning his clothes in the backyard etc.
None of them have direct knowledge of the actual killing but provide a piece of the puzzle to put together a sequence of events for the jury to decide whether, that given all the known circumstances, the suspect is guilty or not.
And while you disagree, I personally think the democrats have done a pretty good job in putting together their case. I think the witnesses are very credible and most importantly their statements and recollections of events flow remarkably well across so many witnesses.
Comment