What Fallacy is this?

I believe you are going to hear evidence that Bruce and Carol Perkins -- Bruce Perkins, the defendant, and his wife, Carol, would invite their sons and their families over often to come to their home to visit and to have family gatherings and eat and do those sort of things, that they would often call on the phone to their sons and daughter-in-laws and go to their homes to visit them, that the daughter-in-laws felt this to be at times a bit intrusive.

I believe you are going to hear evidence that the parents, about a year and a half ago when these children were smaller than they are now, they began to see sexualized play with their children and they didn’t know where it was coming from, didn’t know why their children were doing the things.

I believe you are going to hear evidence that another cousin's name was mentioned by these children, a Jennifer, that she was mentioned as also participating with some of the children.

I think you are going to hear evidence that in the summer of '92 there were two deaths that occurred in the Perkins family, that Carol Perkins? parents passed away shortly -- one right after the other and that during that time when those people passed away that that is the time when these children had been going to Dr. Hudson and the parents were trying to discover where the source of the sex play was coming from.

- Prosecutor Marie Munier, describing the evidence in the Perkins trial that would support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The passage you provided appears to exhibit several logical issues, primarily related to the presentation of evidence and the implications being drawn from it. Here are some of the potential fallacies or biases involved:

1. **Hasty Generalization**: The prosecutor is suggesting that the mere presence of sexualized play among the children implies nefarious behavior by Bruce and Carol Perkins without providing a direct causal link. This is a hasty generalization, as it draws a conclusion about the Perkins from insufficient specific evidence.

2. **Appeal to Ignorance**: The statements imply that because the origin of the children’s behavior is unknown, it could be inferred to relate to the Perkins, which is a form of an appeal to ignorance. This fallacy occurs when a lack of evidence is taken as evidence itself.

3. **Guilt by Association**: Mentioning that another cousin, Jennifer, was mentioned by the children implicates her merely on the basis that she was named in some context. This is a form of guilt by association, which assumes guilt without a direct link to the actions in question.

4. **Red Herring**: The mention of the deaths in the family during the same period as the children visiting Dr. Hudson serves as a distraction from the main argument and does not directly establish guilt. This point may be irrelevant to the central issue of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. **Slippery Slope**: There may be an implicit suggestion that because the children experienced trauma or unusual behavior, this necessarily leads to the conclusion of abuse by the defendants, without intermediate steps or substantial evidence provided.

The logical presentation in the passage suggests that the evidence described might attempt to create a narrative that leads to the presumption of guilt without rigorous substantiation, potentially leading to flawed reasoning.

No logical question is presented here. This is a monologue.

Preface: I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time listening to lawyers about what they do. And I'm not familiar with this case specifically.

During most of the course of a criminal trial, the lawyers on both sides are pretty limited in what they can do: They can show evidence to the jury, they can call witnesses and ask them questions, and they can alert the judge when they believe something legally improper is occurring. They don't really have any room to insert their own commentary, except in the opening and closing statements.

With an opening statement, each lawyer's goal is essentally to present a narrative as to why the defendant is guilty or not, and how the evidence they're about to see and testimony they're about to hear will prove that. That said, looking at this statement, I have two issues with it. First, there's mention of Carol's parents dying, but really no mention of how that's relevant. The second is that it's just sparse. If Bruce was abusing his grandchildren, the evidence mentioned could be building blocks in a larger narrative about his guilt. But, as they stand, it looks like things that could easily be dismissed as coincidence.

I might call this a non-sequitor, as the evidence they mentioned doesn't really add up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But it could if they fleshed it out more and had strong evidence.