Putting aside that it looks like the judge is encouraging the jury to convict on circumstantial evidence, it’s a really stupid metaphor. For one, it assumes that you have several hints that it rained including wet ground, people walking around with umbrellas and raincoats, cloudy conditions etc., when all they actually have is a metaphorical damp sidewalk.
There could be lots of reasons to explain that. It could have just been a dewy morning with rain expected, someone’s sprinklers could have malfunctioned, a fire hydrant could have been damaged, street cleaners could have come by. He just introduced a bunch of reasonable doubt into the case.
Really, if you woke up in the morning and it looked like it rained, and then you heard a news report that said a fire hydrant was hit by a car would you say, “Oh my goodness, that has never happened in the world before and it couldn’t possibly be true.”?
My 2 cents,
Love,
O2
P.S.
tagline tagline tagline