Lurker from original pizzagate on Reddit...

Coming from a lawyer... I want to help focus this sub on building a case. If not interested, then i guess the post will just die out. I will ask questions and play devils advocate to help form a case (just like real prosecutors).

To make this on-topic, it seems as if the seth rich killing could blow pizzagate wide open, if proven true. That being said, here are my thoughts... As of right now, everything is based in the court of public opinion. For that, the standard of proof (by how much someone would need to prove something ie beyond 50/50 vs beyond a shadow of a doubt) seems extremely high because at first glance, the DNC involvement in a murder seems unlikely and unreasonable to most people because they don't WANT to believe it.

Moving it over to the criminal prosecution world, the standard is much lower to begin. In order for police to obtain warrants and make arrests, you need to show Probable Cause. Probable cause is a "fair probability." It doesn't even have to be better than 50/50. Probable Cause can be based on hearsay but must be reliable evidence. An anonymous source CAN be used, but only if reliable. For example, an anon source says Steve did it, with no other information, then that is not reliable. However if anon source says Steve did it and included facts that are verifiable and not of public knowledge yet, then that would be reliable.

so let's start... Is it a fair probability that Podesta was involved? If so, what makes it a fair probability? Is it a fair probability that Dr. Sava was involved? If so, what makes it a fair probability?

If you can establish probable cause and then show the DC police are not acting, that's a whole different potential crime and more evidence of the ultimate truth. If there is a cover up by DC police, you might want to find out if it was normal for each officer that reported to the scene to be there and if there are any complaints against any of them and if that was their beat. Also, what is their protocol (from their actual training, not what you suspect it to be) and did they follow it? EDIT: http://m.policemag.com/article/1691/understanding-probable-cause

EDIT 2: So, even I get caught up in the rabbit hole sometimes and make things much more difficult than they need to be.

Simply put, a killing occurred. It most likely was not a robbery attempt as nothing was taken. So, from there, we need to decide whether it was pre-meditated or random. Considering most killings occur for a reason, we must assume that the killing occurred for some reason (for investigative purposes). Therefore, as detectives, we look at who had the most motive, the biggest reason. Considering we know that there is an eyewitness who claims to have proof of why someone or a group of people might have motive to kill our victim, we must investigate that claim. However, as good detectives, we realize that the claim itself (devoid of any further proof) is still evidence in and of itself. As good, normal detectives, we are going to look into this group/person who is claimed to have a reason to want our victim dead, now... Leaving no stone unturned, because after all, a young man died, and it is our job. We have to investigate all suspicious leads. Now, this leads us to a big dilemma. If the potential suspect or person of interest has any connection to us or our department, so as to create a mere APPEARANCE of impropriety, as good, normal detectives, we should step aside so as not to potentially taint the investigation. Remembering that it isn't ACTUAL impropriety, but the mere APPEARANCE of it. If it is our entire department that would have the APPEARANCE of impropriety, then a neighboring jurisdiction and/or the FBI should take over.

This is all assuming that we should treat this killing as any other killing, investigating all suspicious leads in some way. It is also assuming we shouldn't give preferential treatment to anyone. Just my two cents

EDIT 3: The articulable facts that would attach JP to this (if they exist) will probably, somehow, be in the WikiLeaks series. These are his communications with his "criminal organization." So, there have got to be SOME nuggets in their (coded or not). Also, think about this... If a gunman brutally, randomly gunned down an innocent staffer of theirs, what would their communications have been like around that time? Maybe the LACK of discussion can be a clue as well...