zlacker

But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt.

You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?

>>mardif+(OP)
> But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here.

I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense.

The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like.

But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.