Tag Archives: culprit

Alibi

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter A

Alibi: (n) a claim or a piece of evidence that someone was elsewhere when a criminal act is alleged to have taken place.

I think I have only talked to a policeman about four or five different times in my life. Isn’t that weird?

I have avoided these encounters because quite bluntly, I don’t like them. It’s not personal, or a disrespect for the profession. It’s more the realization that putting oneself in jeopardy of being questioned or challenged is a great way to eventually fall off the cliff, onto the rocks of stupidity.

On those few occasions when I have been stopped by a policeman for a traffic violation, or to ask me if I’ve seen something on the road as I’ve traveled, my profile is always simple: don’t talk too much. Limit answers to less than eight words and make the policeman draw out the information instead of fumbling around, trying to come up with an alibi to display how it would be impossible for me to have been a participant in anything gone awry.

Here’s the truth: the more we speak, the guiltier we become.

You see this watching any cop show or movie. If a suspect is glib, full of unrequired information, you pretty well assume he’s the culprit.

So even though I have never hurt or killed anyone, if I was questioned on the subject, I would not be in any hurry to establish my alibi or explain my whereabouts, nor seem surprised that the inquiry was being made in the frist place.

I remember the first time I heard the spiritual sung, “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?”

After the musical question was posed for the first time, I simply stopped singing and said … “No.”

Admissible

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter AAdmissible (adj.): acceptable or valid, especially as evidence in a court of law.

Now THIS is interesting.

What if we conducted our relationships with one another with the same meticulous style that evidence is procured, packaged and presented in a courtroom?

What does constitute a case?

In relationships we think that all we have to do is express that we FEEL something, have an inkling, “we’re afraid,” or we’re just in a bad mood. We consider that to be sufficient circumstantial proof that our partner should bend his or her will in our direction.

Of course, that would never be admissible in a court room.

Can you imagine the prosecuting attorney rising to his or her feet and turning to the jury box and saying, “I don’t know.,.. maybe it’s because I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but I just really feel like Bob, sitting over in that chair, killed his friend, Phil, and even though I’m not positive, if you love me, you’ll go along with it …”?

No, that wouldn’t be acceptable. The defense attorney would lodge an objection which would be sustained by a judge, who would frown at the prosecutor for such presumptuous allegations.

So if we DID conduct our personal affairs with the same litigious demands required in the justice system, would we be better or worse off?

  • First of all, we couldn’t make accusations without evidence. And by the way, that particular proof would have to be obvious AND not merely hearsay on what our friends and neighbors allegedly believe.
  • Secondly, it would help if the culprit’s fingerprints were all over the weapon. The fact that our loved one OWNS a knife does not necessarily mean that he or she used it to kill somebody.
  • How about this one? We’d have to allow for cross-examination. Once we presented our case we’d have to be willing to listen to someone disagree without copping an attitude or stomping out of the room.
  • Eye witnesses would be helpful.
  • Photo evidence?
  • A video loop?
  • Past deeds could not be brought into play, because prior acts cannot be used in a present case.
  • And no allegation can be spoken aloud without evidence already being put forth and accepted.
  • We then would have to turn it over to either a judge or a jury of our peers, who would not be in our back pocket, but would swear impartiality to both parties.

In other words, we’d have to make a case instead of just have an attitude.

In order for our particular assertion to be admissible, it would have to be based on the facts instead of merely our feelings. We would probably end up with fewer fights … but more grudges.

Please make note: I am not suggesting that we do this, but I am saying that the same amount of effort it takes to convict someone of shoplifting should be granted as a courtesy to anyone we love.