Replies

And CD, it's not just from a theoretical viewpoint--it's what the judge will instruct the jury!

In your example about your shot business associate, the ballistics tying the bullet in him to your revolver might be quite impressive--unless you proved that your revolver was in a shop being repaired while you were in Chicago. In that case, the plane ticket placing you in the same city with him would become the stronger circumstantial evidence. The ballistics findings might be wrong, but you might still be a suspect due to knowing him and being in the same city when he was shot.

If your business associate was shot in Chicago, and ballistics indicated that it was a revolver owned by you which shot him, that would still not be much if it were proved that YOU were far away from Chicago while he was in Chicago.

So the forensic (ballistics) evidence would not necessarily be the stronger circumstantial evidence in every case.

The public has seen and heard more than just evidence of Scott being in various places at various times. We've heard of things he DID and SAID, and of his manner. Some of his mannerisms and mood, not too long after the "disappearance", can be directly seen by us in videotapes of him being interviewed. These are very telling. No, not enough to convict him, on their own, but very telling.

And call me optimistic, but I don't think the MAJORITY of married men have affairs. Therefore, even if all the men who had affairs ended up killing their wives, still, the majority of wives would not have been killed by their cheating husbands.