What logical 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.

Answer

The passage presented includes several logical fallacies and instances of poor reasoning. Here are some key points:

1. **Appeal to Emotion (Pathos):** The prosecutor mentions the deaths in the Perkins family, which could evoke sympathy and serve as a distraction from the central issue of whether or not an offense took place. This is an appeal to the emotions of the audience rather than a presentation of factual evidence related to the alleged crime.

2. **Hasty Generalization:** The mention of sexualized play by children without concrete evidence linking it to any actions by Bruce and Carol Perkins is a hasty generalization. Concluding that they are responsible based on observations of the children's behavior without direct evidence is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

3. **Non Sequitur:** The sequence of events described, including family visits, phone calls, and the mentioning of another cousin's name, does not logically establish guilt. The conclusions or implications drawn from these statements do not logically follow from the premises.

4. **Ambiguity/Vagueness:** The repeated phrase "I believe you are going to hear evidence" makes the prosecutor's statements seem speculative rather than concrete. Without specific evidence, these statements rely on vagueness, leading to unclear reasoning that does not effectively support the claim.

5. **Appeal to Possibility:** There is an implication that because something could be the case (i.e., possible involvement of Bruce and Carol Perkins in inappropriate behavior), it should be considered as having evidence of occurrence. However, possibility does not equate to probability or certainty.

Overall, the prosecutor's description uses flawed logic and reasoning by not directly connecting the evidence to the guilt of Bruce Perkins beyond insinuations and speculative statements. This approach weakens the argument and does not effectively support a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are we to assume each conclusion as fact, fill in missing premises with what we think they are, and then analyze the entire monologue? 

Rather than merely copy and paste an opening argument, you should set forth the propositions you wish to present for analysis.