HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What "there is evide...

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 09:36 PM

 

What "there is evidence" means to a lawyer


The word "evidence" as used by lawyers doesn't always mean what people interpret to be "proof".

"There is evidence" that Christie knew. We know that Bridget Kelly was with Christie and texting about it that day.

That fact constitutes "evidence". It is a thing which, if proven, renders a conclusion more likely. "Evidence" may render something even a teeny bit more likely, than in its absence.

For example, let's say a bank was robbed of $100 bills and you were arrested. At the time you were arrested, you had a $100 bill in your pocket.

Now, you could have a $100 bill in your pocket for a lot of reasons. But the fact that you had a $100 is "evidence" that you robbed the bank. It is by no means proof that you did.

So, whatever was meant by that line, the construction "there is evidence" doesn't necessarily mean that Wildstein is in possession or knows the location of anything in particular, and could just as easily be a careful wording that he might - and would talk about it if granted immunity. Because if he had anything in his possession, it would have to be turned over in response to a subpoena anyway.

Absent some idea of whether this is documentary evidence or merely circumstantial evidence, it's hard to say whether the letter means that Wildstein has a smoking gun.

14 replies, 1778 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply What "there is evidence" means to a lawyer (Original post)
jberryhill Jan 2014 OP
elleng Jan 2014 #1
Tx4obama Jan 2014 #2
Gothmog Jan 2014 #3
jberryhill Jan 2014 #5
cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #10
jberryhill Jan 2014 #13
ProSense Jan 2014 #4
jberryhill Jan 2014 #7
ProSense Jan 2014 #8
jberryhill Jan 2014 #11
onehandle Jan 2014 #6
cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #9
jberryhill Jan 2014 #12
Gothmog Feb 2014 #14

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 09:44 PM

1. Thanks for the clarification, berryhill.

People need to understand this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 09:46 PM

2. I'm betting that Wildstein has more 'evidence' and even some that will turn out to be a smoking gun


... but we won't hear about it until he receives immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 09:55 PM

3. Evidence is only relevant if it makes the truth of the matter asserted more likely

Good job on the explanation. I agree with your warnings and cautions. I also want DUers to remember that we have only seen part of the story.

Evidence is only helpful if it tends to prove the assertion in question and such evidence is not tainted. It is impossible to evaluate the evidence that we have seen to date. Here Wildstein's attorney has been in control of all of the evidence or facts that we have seen. The e-mail about Traffic problems for Fort Lee is from a heavily redacted e-mail produced by Wildstein. A fact finder can not rely on this evidence by itself and needs to see all of the e-mails in this chain and the rest of the correspondence. Wildstein has been releasing information with the goal of getting immunity and not necessarily exposing the truth in this case. As such, this evidence needs to carefully considered.

I am convinced that Christie knew of the lane closure but this opinion is based on my understanding of Christie being a micro manager and his history. My opinion would not be admissible and is subject to change based on the real evidence. I am waiting for the real evidence to come out which unfortunately may not happen for a long time. I fear that we will not see the real facts here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:07 PM

5. Evidence "tying Christie to having knowledge"

 

That can be pretty ephemeral.

Not even "evidence Christie had knowledge"

But "evidence tying Christie to having knowledge"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:33 PM

10. Maybe they have Christie's transcript from Faber College

(Will anyone get that joke?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:06 PM

13. But it was double secret probation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 09:55 PM

4. Christie's response is a clue that it's more.

He completely contradicted his previous ever-changing lies by claiming that the letter confirmed what he said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024423267

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:20 PM

7. Stock response

 

That's like Palin saying the Troopergate report exonerated her.

It didn't. But saying that some damning evidence proves your point, is a set piece of posturing argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:25 PM

8. True, but

"Stock response

That's like Palin saying the Troopergate report exonerated her. "

...Christie's situation involves a series of on-record denials that contradict his current statement.

The problem for him is that he's still lying. Whether or not the evidence Wildstein has is circumstantial, Christie dug himself deeper into the hole.

Another thing, Wildstein was in the thick of it, and it's not inconceivable that he has the evidence to back up his claim.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:02 PM

11. Oh I did not mean to suggest it is "inconceivable"

 

Far from it.

The rest of the letter, apart from that shiny dangly carefully-worded tidbit, is quite interesting considering what is the purpose of the letter. This is the lawyer saying "pay me or I make things worse for you all".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:17 PM

6. What's important is that Christie's political future has been further damaged.

No chance he will even run for President now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:29 PM

9. Yes, he doesn't assert that this evidence is not already known

In fact, the usage in the context of the purpose of the letter somewhat implies that he IS referring to what is already public. The letter is characterizing the situation as we know it, not being a proffer.

Which makes it a very clever letter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:04 PM

12. Indeed

 

It ensured that letter got a LOT of attention, than it would without it.

He is basically saying there is a conflict of interest among those who are refusing to write him a check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sat Feb 1, 2014, 12:55 AM

14. I am watching Hardball

Isikoff is doing a good job of discussing what might be this evidence

Lawyers van play games and Isikoff is explaining some of these games

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread