- indirect evidence
- secondary facts by which a principal fact may be rationally inferred
Much of our judicial system relies on rational thinking and circumstantial evidence. Criminals have been properly convicted of crimes against people and property and sent to prison or even to their execution based on overwhelming circumstances.
It is very rare to have "proof" that someone committed murder. You don't usually have a video, or a real eye witness. What you have are circumstances that indicate a crime was committed and that a certain person was the only one that could have committed the crime. The presence of garrote marks on a woman's dead body and corresponding garrote marks on the hands of the suspect do not prove that the suspect committed the crime. It only proves that the victim was strangled and that the suspect handled a rope or strap that left similar marks on his hands. Tire prints of the suspects car found in the vicinity of the body do not prove that the victim was ever in the car. It only proves that the car was there recently enough that the tire marks are still discernible. If the suspects DNA is inside the victims body, it does not prove he raped her. It only proves he had intercourse with her. The fact that his skin is trapped under her finger nails does not prove she tried to fight off her attacker. It may only show she engaged in some sort of intense relationship, perhaps consensual sadomasochistic sex.
However, taken together, the fact that she is dead, his car was proven to have been in the area where her body was discovered, he has ligature marks on his hands that match the marks on her neck, that she has his DNA in her body and that she has scrapings of his skin under her finger nails would be enough proof to send him to the gas chamber or at least to life in prison! But, there is no real proof. No witness. No video. What there is, are circumstances that "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" in the mind of reasonable people that the suspect murdered the victim.
Major weaknesses exist with circumstantial prosecutions. For example, even in the face of overwhelming evidence the perpetrator may be judged not guilty by the jury. The murderer, OJ Simpson comes to mind. Another example is that every year modern scientific investigative methods prove individuals were innocent of the crime. The Innocence Project has successfully overturned numerous convictions based on DNA evidence. Another example is the clear miscarriage based on circumstantial evidence is the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The democrats and the compliant press succeeded in making the trial about sex, [which it never was], instead of perjury, subornation of perjury, and abuse of power by the most powerful person in the free world. Both of those circumstantial cases, OJ and Bill Clinton, have been made and the overwhelming evidence was ignored.)
Scott Peterson sits on death row in California for the 2002 murder of his wife, Laci. She was reported missing around Christmas, 2002. On April 13, 2003 the body of her unborn baby was discovered washed up on the shore San Francisco Bay. The next day a female torso, missing hands, feet and head, was discovered in the lake. The autopsy determined that the body was Laci and the baby was hers. Her husband, Scott Peterson, was arrested and charged with her murder. Since there was no video of the murder and no eye witness, the trial was completely based on circumstances. The prosecutor had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Scott Peterson murdered Laci and their baby. The defense did not have to prove that Scott did not kill them. His burden was merely to introduce doubt in the mind of the jurors that it could have been someone else. In other words, the defense only needed to show that the circumstances were such that someone else might have committed the murder or even that there was no murder. Perhaps Laci merely jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.
The evidence against Peterson consisted of a hair, believed to be Laci's, stuck to pair of pliers from Scott's boat. He added two porn channels to his cable television service just days after Laci was reported missing. The prosecution posited that Scott knew Laci was not coming home. Scott also sold her car and had plans to sell their house. The prosecutor called an expert on the tides in San Francisco Bay to testify about the currents in the bay. On cross examination he admitted that his findings were only probable and not precise as to the travel of the bodies in the lake because of tides and currents. Scott was having an affair with Amber Frey. He told Frey, before Laci was reported missing that he had "lost" his wife. The affair was not presented as a motive for the murder but as an indication Scott's character. Scott Peterson was convicted and waits on death row.
There are serious problems inherent in circumstantial evidence. For example, science may advance to a degree that the convicted person is proven innocent. We frequently see stories in the news of men freed from prison after serving many years in prison for a rape or murder he did not commit. DNA screening, which did not even exist, has proven that some waiting on death row are innocent. It is incumbent on society to get it right, especially when circumstantial evidence is the primary evidence available.
Since the focus of my blog is politics, I am establishing with this treatise the use of circumstantial evidence on these pages to reach rational conclusions about our government and politicians. The use of circumstantial evidence is critical in the analysis of politics and politicians.
Stay tuned..............
Scott Peterson sits on death row in California for the 2002 murder of his wife, Laci. She was reported missing around Christmas, 2002. On April 13, 2003 the body of her unborn baby was discovered washed up on the shore San Francisco Bay. The next day a female torso, missing hands, feet and head, was discovered in the lake. The autopsy determined that the body was Laci and the baby was hers. Her husband, Scott Peterson, was arrested and charged with her murder. Since there was no video of the murder and no eye witness, the trial was completely based on circumstances. The prosecutor had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Scott Peterson murdered Laci and their baby. The defense did not have to prove that Scott did not kill them. His burden was merely to introduce doubt in the mind of the jurors that it could have been someone else. In other words, the defense only needed to show that the circumstances were such that someone else might have committed the murder or even that there was no murder. Perhaps Laci merely jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.
The evidence against Peterson consisted of a hair, believed to be Laci's, stuck to pair of pliers from Scott's boat. He added two porn channels to his cable television service just days after Laci was reported missing. The prosecution posited that Scott knew Laci was not coming home. Scott also sold her car and had plans to sell their house. The prosecutor called an expert on the tides in San Francisco Bay to testify about the currents in the bay. On cross examination he admitted that his findings were only probable and not precise as to the travel of the bodies in the lake because of tides and currents. Scott was having an affair with Amber Frey. He told Frey, before Laci was reported missing that he had "lost" his wife. The affair was not presented as a motive for the murder but as an indication Scott's character. Scott Peterson was convicted and waits on death row.
There are serious problems inherent in circumstantial evidence. For example, science may advance to a degree that the convicted person is proven innocent. We frequently see stories in the news of men freed from prison after serving many years in prison for a rape or murder he did not commit. DNA screening, which did not even exist, has proven that some waiting on death row are innocent. It is incumbent on society to get it right, especially when circumstantial evidence is the primary evidence available.
Since the focus of my blog is politics, I am establishing with this treatise the use of circumstantial evidence on these pages to reach rational conclusions about our government and politicians. The use of circumstantial evidence is critical in the analysis of politics and politicians.
Stay tuned..............
To link to this blog post, please copy and paste this URL.
https://tinyurl.com/yy9chzfg
No comments:
Post a Comment