[Local] Conservative Talk Radio Host Michael Berry Involved in Hit & Run at Gay Bar

and that's why I don't lecture people on possums

thanks for making my point

PREESH

 

fishy stories usually stink after a couple of days

Why are all the defenders discounting the eyewitness? Doesn't he deserve the benefit of trust as much as the alleged perpetrator. His story is supported by all the physical evidence.

(my guess at the truth is that words word exchanged with the bouncer, there has to be a motive)



But it looks like Berry's rigid defense has gone limp!

 

It had nothing to do with defending Berry. It was a wait and see approach until there was more evidence to support the facts. No one is discounting the eyewitness. It's a he said/he said situation though. And what physical evidence are you talking about? The bouncer's car? I don't think there was dispute it was hit. The question is by whom. And since they just took paint samples this week, what physical evidence are you referring to?
I was giving him benefit of the doubt until this recent 'admission' by him. Despite MadMax's explanation of possible reasoning on why he would pay for the damage and yet not accept fault, I'm swayed to the other side. That said, there still is no physical evidence until the paint chip results come back.

 

pretty much this

 

Ding ding dingleberry. This is it in a nutshell.

 

*snicker*

 

#1 The car, evidence that something happened
#2 The statement of the eye witness, with a claim of who the perpetrator was and the intentional nature of the act
#3 The video evidence confirming Berry was in fact there

That's a pretty valid indictment. All that's needed is the confirmation of the paint chips and a motive for a slam dunk . The only defense would be to put someone other than Berry behind the wheel of his car.

I do believe the bouncer knows the motive but has yet to make a statement on that. Given the privacy issues inherent at a 'gay' bar that's understandable. He would have to testify about that if it came to trial and I believe that is Berry's attorney's motive to get this thing settled a quietly as possible.

If the real scenario is something other than that it would be contrary to logic though, of course, not impossible.

 

1. All this shows is someone damaged the bouncer's car.
2. All this is someone saying he damaged their car. And him saying he didn't.
3. All this says is he was there. Something he did not dispute.

The paint chips are not just icing on the cake. They are absolutely required to establish guilt. Everything else you said is either he said/he said or circumstantial.

 

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. People are convicted of far more serious crimes than this with circumstantial evidence.

 

If paint chips match:

All this means is someone with the same paint job hit the victim's car. Circumstantial..case dismissed.

 

As has been pointed out circumstantial evidence is still evidence and can convict a person.

Paint chips match - the suspect was confirmed to be at the bar when the accident happened - witnesses claim the suspect was the one who ran into the car.

Put it all together and there is a decent chance for conviction.

 

I don't think either of the other circumstances are enough to convict. If the paint chips match then they would have enough.
Otherwise I could see some famous celebrity at a bar. Go out and crash my car. Call the police and claim I saw him do it. Show there is video evidence he was at the bar. There's your video evidence, witness testimony, and car damage. All of which proves nothing.

 

First of all, there absolutely enough evidence for an indictment (lawyers?)

Then if you put the eyewitness on the stand and the jury finds him credible, what else would you need? (Provided he would testify. Gay bar bouncers looking to get compensated may not want to).

Someone knows why this happened. And that's the real story here.

 

So you're saying that the video of him being in the bar and the damage on the car alone is enough for an indictment?
And then the testimony of the bouncer would be enough for a conviction? Without paint chips?
Totally disagree.

 

The statement of the eyewitness, plus the physical evidence = indictment.

His testimony, deemed credible after cross examination, would be enough for conviction.

We are still waiting for a credible alternative story. I don't believe Berry has offered one and did offer settlement (not evidence of guilt in itself).

Maybe Colombian drug dealers did it.

 

Without the paint chip results (which is what we're talking about right now), the only physical evidence is that the car was damaged.

 

you realized that the paint from both cars will be present on each other right? that's not circumstantial evidence.

 

Sorry I didn't realize that people thought I was being serious. This circumstantial evidence defense reminds me of dave chapelle's skit on the R. Kelly trial.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fEiI_04R_mA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And hell, R. Kelly got off despite video evidence so I'm sure Berry could do it too...even with confirmation of the paint chips.

 

Btw, it might be helpful to know what circumstantial evidence is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence.

 

This came up on my twitter account today:

Similar to you

Michael Berry ‏ @MichaelBerrySho
Follow

Is Berry still doing his show?