TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss
I thought facts were not facts until a trier of facts (a jury) says it is a fact. This is at least what has been argued so vigoursly on this forum

Without a jury, it can be established as a fact that there is a dead body. Based on statements and evidence, the jury determines [concludes] if it was murder and if the accused is guilty.

WildBill wrote:[quote="pt145ss
I thought facts were not facts until a trier of facts (a jury) says it is a fact. This is at least what has been argued so vigoursly on this forum.

Without a jury it can be established as a fact that there is a dead body. The jury determines if it was murder and if the accused is guilty.[/quote]

A medical examiner can say something to the like that based on the amount of blood found at the scene that there was enough blood loss to cause death. But that does not mean that someone is dead…it is entirely possible the person is still alive. In the above scenario, a grand jury would make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to support the claim that someone is dead.

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree. My point was that on many occasions it has been argued on this forum that the only people who can determine facts are the jury and anyone else is just speculating what a jury would find to be fact.

pt145ss wrote:A medical examiner can say something to the like that based on the amount of blood found at the scene that there was enough blood loss to cause death. But that does not mean that someone is dead…it is entirely possible the person is still alive. In the above scenario, a grand jury would make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to support the claim that someone is dead.

If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

WildBill wrote:

pt145ss wrote:A medical examiner can say something to the like that based on the amount of blood found at the scene that there was enough blood loss to cause death. But that does not mean that someone is dead…it is entirely possible the person is still alive. In the above scenario, a grand jury would make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to support the claim that someone is dead.

If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

No no its like in the movies. They are never dead they always come back to life when you go to poke them.

WildBill wrote:

pt145ss wrote:A medical examiner can say something to the like that based on the amount of blood found at the scene that there was enough blood loss to cause death. But that does not mean that someone is dead…it is entirely possible the person is still alive. In the above scenario, a grand jury would make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to support the claim that someone is dead.

If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

He was referring to lots of blood and gore, but no body.

WildBill wrote:

pt145ss wrote:A medical examiner can say something to the like that based on the amount of blood found at the scene that there was enough blood loss to cause death. But that does not mean that someone is dead…it is entirely possible the person is still alive. In the above scenario, a grand jury would make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to support the claim that someone is dead.

If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

I agree 100% a courpse is good evidence to support that. I was just pointing that on this particular forum it has been argued that only a jury can determine fact. Now it is said that a reports has facts, not yet seen by a jury. Search finders of fact or something like that to see what I am talking about.

pt145ss wrote:I was just pointing that on this particular forum it has been argued that only a jury can determine fact. Now it is said that a reports has facts, not yet seen by a jury. Search finders of fact or something like that to see what I am talking about.

If you go back and re-read the threads you will find that most of the discussion is about needing a jury to determine the "fact" of whether a person committed a crime or offense.

It can be a fact that the hospital was posted 30.06. It can be a fact that the person was arrested. It can be a fact that the police have a pistol. But only the jury will determine whether that person is guilty of a crime. Okay? Now back to the thread...

Wildscar wrote:

WildBill wrote:If you have a corpse, any reasonable person would conclude that the person is dead.

No no its like in the movies. They are never dead they always come back to life when you go to poke them.

Which is why you borrow Moonpie's Winchester to poke them with.

If you people keep alluding to zombies, in light of recent local events, I'm gonna start a "best ammo for aliens" thread.

KD5NRH wrote:If you people keep alluding to zombies, in light of recent local events, I'm gonna start a "best ammo for aliens" thread.

KD5NRH - You're going to have to start two threads. If you did a little research you'd find out that zombies are not aliens!!! Everyone knows that shotguns are best for zombies. Now, Pod People are a whole different story.

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote: Reports contain statements, not "facts". The report might only state what you said: "She was given proper written notice."

Unless the report references a specific sign or "written communication" along with evidence that she was given such notice, we have no way of knowing if such a statement is true or not.

Reports contain facts & statements made by victims, suspects and witnesses.
A fact is something that has occurred or is known to be true. Conclusions are opinions based on facts, and should not be in reports.

I don't know what they teach LEOs about writing reports, but wouldn't it be more correct to say that reports contains "observations and statements" rather than "facts and statements"? Maybe I am nickpicking?

WildBill wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote: Reports contain statements, not "facts". The report might only state what you said: "She was given proper written notice."

Unless the report references a specific sign or "written communication" along with evidence that she was given such notice, we have no way of knowing if such a statement is true or not.

Reports contain facts & statements made by victims, suspects and witnesses.
A fact is something that has occurred or is known to be true. Conclusions are opinions based on facts, and should not be in reports.

I don't know what they teach LEOs about writing reports, but wouldn't it be more correct to say that reports contains "observations and statements" rather than "facts and statements"? Maybe I am nickpicking?

No

txinvestigator wrote:No

Please explain.

WildBill wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:No

Please explain.

Cop makes a contact and ends up arresting for burglary.

He writes, "the two men were crouching by the door. The door had fresh tool marks on it and subject 1 had a crow bar in his hand". Those are facts.

If he simply wrote, " Two suspicious men were trying to break into the building" ; that is a conclusion based on the facts. ;)

txinvestigator wrote:

WildBill wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:No

Please explain.

Cop makes a contact and ends up arresting for burglary.
He writes, "the two men were crouching by the door. The door had fresh tool marks on it and subject 1 had a crow bar in his hand". Those are facts.
If he simply wrote, " Two suspicious men were trying to break into the building" ; that is a conclusion based on the facts. ;)

I understand that part. I am talking about observations. How can the officer state for a fact that the tool marks were fresh? I know from his experience he can see certain characteristics that would lead him to believe they were fresh. He can observe tool marks that appear to be fresh, but it seems that it is a conclusion, not a fact.

txinvestigator wrote:If he simply wrote, " Two suspicious men were trying to break into the building" ; that is a conclusion based on the facts. ;)

Or if he writes, "Subject was given proper written notice under PC 30.06", this is also a conclusion, which may or may not be correct, based on something not in evidence to those of us hearing the report third hand.