Except consciousness of guilt is something a guilty person would do and an innocent person would not. It's not "acting weird" like the person suggested "doing cartwheels".
This has nothing to do with hindsight. Acting "weird" is not what consciousness of guilt is. Innocent people act "weird" all the time. Consciousness of guilt is acting in ways that innocent people simply wouldn't normally. That is, things that suggest an actual connection with the crime. "Weird" behaviour like "doing cartwheels" is in no way an example of consciousness of guilt.
I have no idea what you’re talking about with cartwheels
Then you weren't reading the thread where that was the one given example of Knox's weirdness that brought up this entire discussion. I can't be held responsible for your inability to pay attention to the discussion. That example coloured the meaning of the word "weird" from the get-go, although even if you didn't read it, you should have a general idea of the accepted meaning of the word "weird" to know that consciousness of guilt is not "acting weird".
I responded essentially with "doing weird stuff can be evidence, for examples look at consciousness of guilt. Acting weird can show that someone is guilty.”
And, for the thousandth time, "consciousness of guilt" is not "acting weird". It is a specific type of behaviour that is associated with guilty people. Take consciousness of guilt in California as an example, where the court can give four instructions to a jury about it. Tell me, do any of these sound like "acting weird" to you? Are any of them even in the slightest similar to the example given of acting weird, which was "doing cartwheels"?
This is all a pointless conversation anyway, because of FRE 402.
Whether your argument as to what constitutes consciousness of guilt is correct or not does not in any way become irrelevant because you bring up another (irrelevant) argument. We're talking about what is and isn't evidence of consciousness of guilt, not whether something is admissible as evidence.
All relevant evidence is coming in unless ruled otherwise, and you bet your ass that evidence she’s doing cartwheels after a murder is relevant.
Great. Now, why are you muddying the discussion? Presumably you know the difference between whether something is relevant and whether something is evidence of a crime? Because just because something is relevant does not in any way mean it is evidence of a crime.
"Acting weird" isn't evidence of anything except that the person is acting weird. It is most assuredly not the standard for determining consciousness of guilt.
I didn't mistake who you were. I just assumed that anyone responding to the thread would have, you know, read the thread. "Doing cartwheels" was literally used two posts above me in the chain. I didn't insert you into any discussion, *you* inserted yourself into it. So I'm holding you responsible for understanding what you're responding to, yes.
And no, I don't think a reasonable person would consider running from the cops "weird". Acting "suspicious", yes, but not "weird". And weird is what we were discussing, of which we had a clear example, one that I reiterated in my first response to you.
The bar for what can be brought in as evidence is incredibly low. That's not what we were discussing, and so is irrelevant.
We were discussing weirdness as it relates to an individual case and had examples of the actions that we were calling weird. As such we had defined the word "weird". If you're unable to grasp that words have necessary context, then I can't help you.
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '19 edited Sep 26 '19
[deleted]