um, OK Adam
but, if not pedantic, then your comments were rather unncessary, were they not? I submit there is no legal scholarship needed to conclude that a civil or criminal case is stronger with a "confession" than without it. That's what we're talking about here, either a confession or nearly so.
You and Jeff wrap this situation up in legal terms and scenarios where a jury would be damning and the particular evidence of such strength that the case would be a lock. My point is there is no legal case and won't be when all you have is a so-called admission. IF the remaining 90% of your case were established--you know, tedious things like an actual victim, a specific card, and a connection with Kevin, then I agree the statement could be the final nail in the proverbial coffin. I think the non-legal term for that scenario is Duh. Without those other elements proved in the least, though, I think it's unfortunate to couch your comments in terms of how this would play out in court.
|