[The Lumster]

"There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."


Much as I like Ann and love her writing I must disagree with her on this.

It is true that the evidence against O.J. was circumstantial but much of that was PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence. Physical evidence placed him at the scene of the crime. Physical evidence placed the victims blood on him , in his car, at his home etc.

In the Peterson case there was NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Not one piece of physical evidence tied him to her death. Heck - they didn't even have a cause of death!

I'm not saying he didn't do it - he probably did - but if I was on that jury I sure would have liked to have seen at least one piece of actual physical evidence before I passed a death sentence.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Physical evidence can be circumstantial. Ann notes this, referencing DNA and fingerprints as examples of such cases.

[Mr. Lucky]

There was a boat load, so to speak of physical evidence.

The bodies were physical evidence. The bag of cement was physical evidence. The boat was physical evidence. The mistress was physical evidence. The hair dye was physical evidence. The glove compartment full of cash was physical evidence. Ad infinitum.