Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Ken Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yardpilot wrote:
>
> > "Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >(Whether
> > > >Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend to
> > > >accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> > > >have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> > >
> > > You accept it as true because the document that would prove it to be
true
> > > has been destroyed?  What would you think if the document existed?!?!!
> >
> > The argument that "it must be true because there is no evidence" sounds
very
> > much like a J. Edgar or J. Reno sort of spin. It is also the argument of
a
> > great many conspiracy theorists.
>
>   It's a common application of the basic rules of evidence.

No it isn't. It is a deliberate distortion and misapplication of the rules
of evidence. If you can show that evidence has been deliberately tampered
with, destroyed or suppressed, you can make some onferences from that. You
CANNOT use the lack of evidence as proof something occurred. If that were
the case, you could be immediately executed for murder. By your logic, since
there is no evidence that you committed one, you did.

<evidence of lack of legal knowledge snipped for brevity.>