It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by aleon1018
reply to post by Valhall
OK, what was the birth date on her alleged fake ID? It would be interesting if this particular web page showed up on one of her computers. Did any of them predate that time period? Maybe she did this at a library etc. But accessing it on the one date would be important to find out from myspace also?
Originally posted by aleon1018
I would still be curious as to why she would need to access the account unless to add or delete something. Wouldn't myspace have these records and IP address?
[edit on 19-2-2009 by aleon1018]
. . how in the world did she know a real, live Zenaida Gonzalez would be at Sawgrass Apartments on June 17th to view an apartment??!!" Who knows, but that crazy coincidence might be one of the things that helps put her away .....
I've been working on a major update to the time line and evidence thread since this latest document dump. I also have some updates for this thread. I'll probably get to update both this weekend.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: At this point in the trial, I am required to inform you as to the law governing this case to guide you in your deliberations. This statement by the Judge as to the law of the case is known as a Charge; it is also called instructions.
It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case.
You, as jurors, are to decide the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law that I am now in the process of defining for you.
You must not change the law or apply your own idea of what you think the law should be. Both you and I are bound by the law as stated in this charge.
You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me.
Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that given in the instructions of the Court, just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as finders of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything other than the evidence in the case.
This is a criminal prosecution, and the rule as to the amount of proof in this case is different from that in civil cases. A mere preponderance of the evidence does not warrant the jury in finding the Defendant guilty. Before the Defendant can be convicted, you must be satisfied of his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The law presumes a Defendant to be innocent of crime. Thus a Defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a "clean slate" - with no evidence against him/her.
This presumption of innocence stays with the Defendant through every stage of the trial, unless and until the State proves his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant is never required to prove that he/she is not guilty.
The law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a Defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case.
The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a Defendant; for the law never imposes upon a Defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
It is not required that the State prove guilt beyond any possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.
See www.state.wv.us... for the full charge by the Judge to the jury.