Making assumptions is often a major mistake. My high school football coach was the first to jump all over my response to him when I made a costly error. The details are murky after all these years but what I remember was saying something like “I assumed someone else was covering the back out of the backfield.” Everyone knows his answer. It went something like this: “Break the word down; when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.” Well, unfortunately, assumptions are necessary in the Stacey Burns murder case simply because the general public is being asked to draw its own conclusions. Here are assumptions I have made which may or may not be accurate because, after all, the best assumptions are not fact until proven so.
1. The police have the murder weapon in hand. If they do not, then that could explain the hesitancy to bring forth an arrest. Have they told anyone that the weapon has been found?
2. There may be some unexplained DNA that was found in the house. If there is even one DNA sample that cannot be explained, it would seem that a good trial lawyer could raise the “reasonable doubt” question, thus placing the prosecution in jeopardy.
Does anyone care to move these assumptions into the fact category for me? Just asking . . .
Duke
