<p>When you guys give examples of circumstantial evidence, you’re using really, really simplistic analogies. It’s not as blind as simply finding clothes and wondering who wore them. It’s finding a LOT of circumstantial evidence that is all consistent with one reasonable explanation but no way to <em>directly prove it.</em></p>
<p>That’s why Casey wound up winning (that, and coupled with the lousy prosecution and their arrogance).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe… If Casey IS innocent then she is also a victim of this crime. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Consistent with the fact and high probability mean nothing given the lack of ANY direct evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is essentially the same as NO evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. If I am accused of shooting you and dumping your body and they find your hair in my car, a drop of your blood in my house, a search on dumping bodies, you were seen last with me, <insert 50=“” other=“” bits=“” of=“” circumstantial=“” evidence=“”> and I don’t have an alibi you STILL can’t prove I actually committed the crime without any direct evidence. </insert></p>
<p>All circumstantial, none of it probative on its own…</p>
<p>Do you think, then, Scott Peterson should not be on death row?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. I find it hard to imagine many people considering Casey a VICTIM! She wasn’t found guilty of murdering her child beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t make her a victim! She actually ADMITS to being involved in an accidental death that was covered up to appear to be a murder. She was aware of her child’s improper burial. She lied that her child was kidnapped. She didn’t report the child as missing or dead. She is hardly a VICTIM in this situation. She simply was found to not be guilty of murder beyond a doubt. Calling her a victim is a stretch. She is actually factually guilty of some wrongdoing, even if not murder. Those wrongdoings are egregious in themselves.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence is <em>not</em> the same as no evidence. There’s a threshold at which it becomes overwhelmingly probable as “proof.” Say you find evidence of semen with a rape kit. I could easily argue a billion other ways it could have gotten there – and yet we’d normally call that “proof” because all other explanations become vanishingly unlikely.</p>
<p>@legendofmax</p>
<ul>
<li>There was no evidence that proved that Caylee bought any Chloroform from anybody</li>
<li>The “air test” they did is very imprecise after a certain period of time due to degradation and cannot be used as direct evidence that chloroform was indeed present.
(Which was why it was refuted by several experts)</li>
</ul>
<p>So what are you left with? That she searched for Chloroform on the internet.</p>
<p>When you get right down to it, that is the basis of their argument. That she used chloroform because she searched for it on the internet. They cannot prove intent/use in any other credible way.</p>
<p>Now, keep in mind that that Caylee’s use of chloroform is at the heart of the prosecution’s case. That WAS their case. Any way you slice it, it is an extremely weak CS evidence argument.</p>
<p>Nobody with a rational mind would convict based on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not really familiar with what happened in his case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said " it was essentially the same as no evidence" not “it is not the same as no evidence.” Try reading that again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Semen alone is not proof. Nor is a claim of rape, nor is bruising. Why do you think rape is notorious as being one of the hardest crimes to prove?</p>
<p>This threshold is not merely an abundance of circumstantial evidence like in Casey’s case. It is usually an abundance of circumstantial evidence in multiple cases or so much circumstantial evidence as to be ludicrous such as with serial rapists, stalkers, serial killers, etc.</p>
<p>In the case where it is so staggering as to be ludicrous I would argue that no one would argue it’s validity. Unlike in this case… ;)</p>
<p>What about the strand of Caylee"s hair found in the trunk with the death band that was the same as the hair found with the body?
What qabout the cadaver dogs that picked up the scent of decomposing body in the car? I mean really.
There were other pieces of evidence that wasnt allowed in court.</p>
<p>You’re belaboring the point, xSlacker. Give me an example, then, of something you define as “non-circumstantial proof.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No I’m not, we have multiple people bringing up the same thing repeatedly. EDIT: LOL OK Maybe I am. :D</p>
<p>Direct evidence. </p>
<p>Knowing something that only the killer could know. Eyewitness that describes exactly what happened or close. A pattern such as multiple kids dying. Telling someone reputable (though that is subjective) she did it.</p>
<p>Direct evidence is hard to explain away. Circumstantial evidence is pretty easy to explain away. Direct evidence corroborated by circumstantial evidence is pretty damning.</p>
<p>Example: The hair with the death band someone mentioned just above. That’s merely circumstantial. </p>
<p>It can only prove a dead body was in the car. It CAN’T prove she killed that person.</p>
<p>Sure, sometimes convictions are handed out on weak evidence or circumstantial evidence. Sometimes jury go based on beliefs and feelings. Shrug… Doesn’t make it right. </p>
<p>Why? Every single death penalty cased overturned by the efforts of the Innocence Project were convictions based on circumstantial evidence and beliefs…</p>
<p>Jennifer Ford, an actual juror, has now given an interview and she specifically states that the jurors did not find her to be innocent just that there was not enough evidence to convict. She pointed out that they had no evidence of the cause of death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not enough evidence to convict meaning what? They feel she did it but didn’t feel the evidence proved it?</p>
<p>What have I been saying this whole time?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t prove what the crime was… Meaning the jury really doesn’t know do they…</p>
<p>She also didn’t say she was NOT innocent.</p>
<p>I think I’ve made my point. No one can actually prove she is not innocent. Any argument to the contrary is supposition and opining. Not proof…</p>
<p>Case made…</p>
<p>@xSlacker – I’ll pose the same question to you that I posed to jsanche32 earlier, (thanks for answering jsanche32). Do you think a defendant should ever be found guilty of murder if the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. Honestly I’d have to say only if it is so overwhelming that it can’t be explained away. But NOT in a death penalty case. I personally believe death should call for a higher standard.</p>
<p>There are other issues I have with the justice system but in a case where the system was working and the prosecutor was an ethical person sure I’d accept that verdict.</p>
<p>I really think the police should be able to come up with ONE piece of direct evidence. Just one… How many murder trials are this ambiguous?</p>
<p>A lot of people are drawing parallels between this case and the Scott Peterson one. But IMHO, they have several differences.</p>
<p>Yes, they both consisted of CS evidence only. But in the Peterson case, the CS evidence was truly enormous and it pointed to a clear picture of what might have actually happened. The prosecution did a good job in making the case credible and CLEAR. Regarding the Caylee case, it was a mess. They never supported their theory of what might actually have happened.</p>
<p>Isn’t it true though that the circumstantial evidence is sometimes more reliable than, for example, a witness ID?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t the crudely processed water in Mexico better than the water in the Sudan??? Yes it is but I’m still not drinking water in Mexico. ;)</p>
<p>It all depends on the case, the evidence, the police, the experts, the prosecutor, etc. I can imagine a witness I believe and some I don’t. I can imagine circumstantial evidence I believe and some that I wouldn’t.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t judge anyone on just one thing. Unless it was severely damning. Or I was the victim or father of the victim. Then who knows what would happen. ;)</p>
<p>Many cases are won based on a preponderance of strong circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that evidence is circumstantial does not mean that proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be attained.</p>
<p>If circumstantial evidence was “essentially the same as no evidence,” it would always be challenged successfully on appeal or deemed inadmissible in the trial.</p>
<p>ooops… cause of death per that juror?? HMMM Dr Temprence Brennon needed…she can determine cause of death from bones LOL…</p>
<p>xSlacker: Yes, you are belaboring the point. My semen example was clearly meant to be an example of sex taking place versus sex NOT taking place – not about whether or not rape was involved specifically. There are some things we take as “proof” even though they have other explanations.</p>
<p>So you say “direct evidence is something only the killer would know” and then bring up eyewitness testimony, the most flimsiest form of evidence there is? Then you bring up patterns? Reputation? “Direct evidence is hard to explain anyway”?</p>
<p>You’re basically describing circumstantial evidence anyway. The fact that there is circumstantial evidence in this trial is not the point. Evidence is evidence. The question is how compelling that evidence is to proving your theory to be correct. In this case, the prosecution did a very poor job.</p>
<p>I think there was plenty there to punish Casey for, at the very least, manslaughter.</p>