Amazinz wrote:2. There is evidence he was obtaining them
Just to clarify - there is no evidenece that he obtained steroids - only testimony that Giambi has received packages from BALCO, allegedly containing steroids.
Evidence is physical proof - not spoken word. Sorry to nitpick, but I obviously feel very strongly about specifics, as would any court.
If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present.
But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future.
The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
[i]-- Master Po[/i]
Amazinz wrote:2. There is evidence he was obtaining them
Just to clarify - there is no evidenece that he obtained steroids - only testimony that Giambi has received packages from BALCO, allegedly containing steroids.
Evidence is physical proof - not spoken word. Sorry to nitpick, but I obviously feel very strongly about specifics, as would any court.
Yes there is evidence. They have Anderson's word, Conte's word and they have the IRS agent visually confirming Giambi entering the BALCO labs on several occasions. Physical evidence is physical proof.
Evidence is anything helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. And after looking it up you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
uh - you do know that BALCO distributes more than just steroids, right? If all BALCO made was illegal steroids, they wouldn't be around.
I know it seems naive to think it, but maybe Giambi WAS just purchasing vitamins or whatever. We have HIS word that that's all he was obtaining. What makes the Conte's word more valuable than Giambi's? Especially since Conte is being indicted on illegal drug distribution charges? Don't you think Conte will say whatever he needs to to save his own hide?
Main Entry: cir·cum·stan·tial
Pronunciation: "s&r-k&m-'stan-ch&l
Function: adjective
: belonging to, consisting in, or dependent on circumstances
In other words, dependent on validation of said evidence. Show me where it says you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence so I can go prove all of my law professors wrong as well as the partners at my firm....that's just a riot that you even made that statement.
If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present.
But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future.
The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
[i]-- Master Po[/i]
Wow. I'd ask for a refund because your schooling sucks. It only took me 2 minutes to look it up on the web.
From Law.com:
circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.
Now after doing a bit of reading on circumstantial evidence (I can post more links and cases) I have come to the conclusion that you are full of crap. I seriously doubt that you work or were ever schooled in law. Cheers.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
think what you may - I have nothing to prove, but read the first sentence in your definition of circumstatial evidence:
evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact
before circumstantial evidence can even be used, the evidence in itself must be proven as fact beyond a reasonable doubt. once proven as fact, it may THEN be used as evidence. you forget a key component.
If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present.
But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future.
The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
[i]-- Master Po[/i]
rmeesig wrote:Show me where it says you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence so I can go prove all of my law professors wrong as well as the partners at my firm....that's just a riot that you even made that statement.
But you were wrong. Because you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Now you choose to elaborate. Whatever man conversation over.
Last edited by Amazinz on Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Lofunzo wrote:r.......Do you charge your clients for the time that you spend at the Cafe??
lol..I'm just a legal asst. - still a few more years of school, then the bar before I can charge people for being at the Cafe!!
If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present.
But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future.
The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
[i]-- Master Po[/i]
Amazinz wrote: But you were wrong. Because you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Now you choose to elaborate. Whatever man conversation over.
No, actually I said:
In other words, dependent on validation of said evidence. Show me where it says you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence so I can go prove all of my law professors wrong as well as the partners at my firm....that's just a riot that you even made that statement
you cut out the bold part I noticed, which is exactly what your def. from law.com states...
[/b]
If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present.
But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future.
The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
[i]-- Master Po[/i]
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by rmeesig » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:17 pm 
