can you see the face of Mary in that rock?

I struggled with the distinction between a Thayer presumption and a Morgan presumption for some time-not actively, mind you. Just when it came up. And now that the Evidence final is a week away, it seemed like a good time to clear up my confusion. It's interesting where these moments of clarity can strike. I was sitting in the taco shop, looking at the different presumptions that California has codified in each category and I decided to work through some from each group to try to see what was different. Well, hells bells, there it was, so simple all along! A Thayer presumption requires that the opposing party offer some evidence that rebuts the presumption. Once rebutted, the presumption disappears, like it never existed, and the jury is never even told of its prior existence. A Morgan presumption, on the other hand, is a bit tougher to get rid of. It requires proof, not just evidence. One must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the presumption is rebutted with countering facts. Even then, it is for the jury to decide which facts are the most likely to be true; they are instructed to find for the party favored by the presumption unless by a POE the rebutting facts are shown. I'd read those same words at least a dozen times. I don't know why I never saw the face in the rock before this time.