Absolutely unimpressive. Lots of his “logic” and “common sense” would prove the *possibility* of assault, but absolutely nothing to prove it happened.. ie, one amusing argument re: evidence: “1 witness said he saw foreigner hit person, but unclear on how many times, 2 witnesses questioned saw nothing”:
Him:
1) Of course it is common sense that the witness can see clearly in this short timeframe. The defendant is a tall white guy on the street in the afternoon!
2) Of course it makes sense that other witness questioned nearby did not see anything, it’s a busy street and lots was going on during Sunday afternoon!
3) The witness was 10+ meters away by his statement, even though the contact happened through the window in the driver’s side car, it makes perfect sense that he could see clearly the difference between grabbing or punching and where the punch happened, it’s only 10 meters!
Logic breaking:
The prosecutor contradicts himself on points 1/2, he said not only does it make perfect sense that people are paying attention to ‘the tall foreigner’ and saw a clear incident that happened over several seconds, but he says it also makes sense that people saw nothing. Why is there only 1 witness, why do others who saw ‘the incident’ say they saw nothing, how does finding 1 person in a crowd of observers who says he saw something but wasn’t clear qualify as a proven witness statement to the event?
Can you see clearly into a car, from an unspecified angle, and see someone’s hands making contact on the driver’s face with a fist but be sure it’s not someone grabbing someone else’s hands instead? This may be possible, but it’s absolutely not probable, more likely the witness saw a scuffle and the police’s directed question of “did you see someone hit someone” was a leading question rather than an open “did you see something abnormal”, so he went along with the story presented to him.
No proof, just presumption, just speculation, just possibility – the prosecutor paints a possible circumstance, not presents factual evidence.
The whole evidence review basically went along these lines.. evidence: 1) ‘victim’ statement, 2) 1 witness statement, 3) my statement. That’s it.