Replies

Those things you listed are circumstantial evidence

From a theoretical viewpoint, I suspect you are right.

However I, like most of the population, make a distinction between forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

For instance, suppose my business rival was shot in Chicago last week.

My plane ticket to Chicago on the day before would certainly be circumstantial evidence. However a balistic report tying a revolver I own to the bullets recovered would not be just circumstantial evidence, but also forensic evidence.

Neither proves I shot him, but the ballistic report is much stronger.

So far, all the public has seen is evidence of Scott being in various places at various times.

We do have direct evidence of an affair, but if every man who ever had an affair killed his wife, we would have very few living wives.

I realize that the public is dazzled by forensic evidence, especially given the fairly recent developments with DNA, and many other wonders, such as insect life cycles. But it's STILL not direct evidence! It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

We could find Scott's blood mixed with Laci's in that kitchen. That would still not be direct evidence of a bloody battle! It would be circumstantial evidence that Scott and Laci both shed blood in the kitchen, and from that we COULD infer that they had a bloody fight in the kitchen.

Direct evidence is, essentially, eyewitness testimony. There will always be exceptions, so I will not say that direct evidence is ALWAYS eyewitness testimony. But it is an "I was there" sort of thing.

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. It can tell us a lot about the person or thing which left it. However, that information will not point to the solution without the necessary links of inferences.

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.