Replies

Circumstantial evidence is misunderstood. An example: You wake up one morning to find a foot of snow on the ground, when there was no snow the day before. There is circumstantial evidence that it snowed that night. You didn't see the snow fall, but the snow is there, and you know there was no other way the snow got there. I think in this case you would agree that the circumstantial evidence is as convincing as the direct evidence.

If you think about the OJ trial, the evidence was mostly circumstantial. Nobody saw him kill the victims.

Finally, consider a husband whose wife finds that his shirt smells like perfume, his pants have lipstick smeared all over the front, there are blonde hairs in his undershirt, and finally little bite marks on his stomach. No direct evidence he was fooling around (unless she broke into the hotel room or found the videotape), but the wife most likely will find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm only speaking generally, as I'm not familiar with all the details of this case.

good examples, but I feel the evidence in this case was not the best. But I was not on the jury. It appear that the 2 jurors that disagreed were booted so they could get the conviction. Hardly a slam dunk case... I'm glad I am not Scott Peterson. I can enjoy the debate from my freeper chair.

it could have been that the guy who had lipstick smeared on him was setup by a guy at a party he was drinking with. The guy gets drunk, his friends mess with him... pure perfume on him and smear lipstick on him. Now he is guilty in the eyes of his wife while being only innocent of being stupid.