You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV
RE: Frank Meza 2:53:10 at LA Marathon (70 years old) unoffical time (just finished)

Took me a while wrote:


deadesq wrote:
Lives? Careers? Plural? Who, other than Frank? Please present your evidence of these allegations.



Diaz? Bland? The ADA? Loyola administration? Kids and parents? If you think this thread has not affected them negatively, you are wrong.



Evidence....not rhetoric. C'mon, TMAW, you can do better than that. If none of this is true, how has Loyola administration been affected? Do you have access to their financial records showing a drop in donations to the school, or that enrollment has suffered? Who at Loyola has been disciplined or dismissed? How has the ADA been impacted? Has he been reassigned at work? At least I've taken the time to provide evidence rather than words. You may disagree regarding the weight of the evidence, but ultimately, the weight of the evidence is something the jury gets to decide.

As I noted before, I think that you're a lawyer or have gone to law school. So let me throw out a jury instruction to you and see if you remember it. Judges are required to give this one in all criminal cases.



223. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined
Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may logically and reasonably conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.


I have no doubt Frank has been affected negatively by this entire saga. I suspect that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, either through circumstantial OR direct evidence.

Hell, I have been negatively affected. You should see my work productivity in the last week. Close to zero. This is way more interesting.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.