Evidence

Since there seems to be a feeling that there is more than enough evidence to secure not only an arrest, but a conviction...I thought it would be good to have a thread where evidence was listed.

Since I really dont know of any evidence that has been found, I will rely on those of of you that do know of the physical as well as the circumstantial evidence LE has in this case.

Great idea Timex!

Maybe someone in the "know" can post the definition of circumstantial evidence and how it differs from actual evidence.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference - Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

:clap: :clap: Good job with the explanations. Thank you!

back to your source, which in this case is:

http://www.tenant.net/Court/Legsystm/jud23.html

It's only fair; I have a Master's Degree in Labor Relations, and they scared the out of us in graduate school about plagiarism...I've never gotten over it...

cappuccina said:

back to your source, which in this case is:

http://www.tenant.net/Court/Legsystm/jud23.html

It's only fair; I have a Master's Degree in Labor Relations, and they scared the out of us in graduate school about plagiarism...I've never gotten over it...

Click to expand...

Thats not the link I used. The info I posted is from an ebook I purchased during an online course.

Timex said:

Thats not the link I used. The info I posted is from an ebook I purchased during an online course.

Click to expand...

Thankfully! I was scared cappucina had actually memorized the content of that link to be able to know where you'd lifted that info from!

You know, I was sitting here staring off into space, and noticed for the first time the "evidence" thread started by Timex. It got me thinking...

The crime here is Janet's murder.

The question is who killed her.

And if you stop and think about it, quite frankly we don't have ANY evidence regarding ANY POI. None. Not one shred.

We have theories. We speculate. We surmise. We guess.

But as far as anything to directly link Raven or anyone else, DIRECTLY to Janet's murder - NOTHING.

Sure, we have voluminous amounts of information about Raven Abaroa. And I think we can all agree, he's not the swellest of guys. Embezzlement, alleged adultery, etc. Egotistical? For sure. Vain? Yup. Materialistic? On as grand a scale as he could accomplish. Criminal? Well, for sure with regard to embezzlement. So, maybe if you knew all those things, he might not be your ideal son-in-law, who knows.

But, none of those things say he's a murderer. Nope, not one thing.

Now, that said, we can draw all sort of implications, inferences, etc. But, we're still missing THE big piece of the puzzle here - hard evidence. Physical evidence that ties him to the murder. Direct evidence that tells LE, "yep, he's our man."

So really, out hands are kind of tied. Until such time as LE releases more information...makes an arrest... or some media outlet jumps on this and runs with it.... or, I suppose, if WE somehow uncovered, or discovered hard evidence...and that's not likely to happen I don't think.

The only vein left to explore, with direct impact on the events of that evening, it seems to anyway, is the soccer game. IF indeed Raven has given that as an alibi, then there's that... Otherwise, what can we do at this point???? And I mean that as far as the issue of evidence goes. Tying someone directly to Janet's murder...

And please don't misunderstand me folks. I'm all for continuing what we're doing. As I said last week, I think every tidbit of information that we gather does in fact have a purpose, as far as painting a picture of an individual. I guess in some rudimentary way, on a tiny scale, it's like profiling. Pulling together ideas, thoughts, facts about what makes a person tick... And if that leads us to believe, or not as the case may be, that the finger is pointing at some particular person, then all that is left is the hard evidence to then PROVE the case...

So, I say we keep plugging along. Filling in the blanks slowly but surely. But, keeping our eye on the prize, so to speak -

Evidence that will arrest, try, and convict Janet's murderer.

SouthEastSleuth said:

But as far as anything to directly link Raven or anyone else, DIRECTLY to Janet's murder - NOTHING.

Sure, we have voluminous amounts of information about Raven Abaroa. And I think we can all agree, he's not the swellest of guys. Embezzlement, alleged adultery, etc. Egotistical? For sure. Vain? Yup. Materialistic? On as grand a scale as he could accomplish. Criminal? Well, for sure with regard to embezzlement. So, maybe if you knew all those things, he might not be your ideal son-in-law, who knows.

But, none of those things say he's a murderer. Nope, not one thing.

Click to expand...

Very true, all we've proved is that Raven Abaroa is not the most upstanding human being. Statistically he looks good as a suspect, he was the person closest to her. However, I'm frustrated that his is the only name we have and he's only person we know for certain was at the crime scene. I'm all for plugging along.

This is why I would really like to know if the story about a co-worker going to the house when Janet didnt respond to an email is accurate.

I know some have speculated perhaps they were IM'ing, not emailing, and thats why the co-worker was alarmed when she didnt respond, but even at that, I find it a bit strange for someone to assume there was a serious problem just because she didnt respond. UNLESS, Janet had typed a message saying she had heard a noise or something like that.

Those of us who utilize the chat here can attest to the fact that often one of us will be chatting and suddenly disappear for sometimes hours. Things come up, we dont always take the time to inform others we will be AFK. None of us would assume danger had befallen our members simply because they stopped responding.

newkid said:

Very true, all we've proved is that Raven Abaroa is not the most upstanding human being. Statistically he looks good as a suspect, he was the person closest to her. However, I'm frustrated that his is the only name we have and he's only person we know for certain was at the crime scene. I'm all for plugging along.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I certainly hope it did not seem as if I was throwing in the towel here - far from it! I think continuing to do, what we do, each and everyday, is incredibly important and valuable.

With regards to Raven himself, each day I feel like I "know" him a little better... get a better and clearer understanding of what makes him tick. And you're absolutely right newkid - his is indeed the only name we have. The only possible suspect that we know of. And yes, the only person we know of that was at the crime scene that evening. So gathering any and all information about the ONLY person we KNOW of that could even possibly have been involved - I'm all for it. And I know that every single piece of information we've uncovered here, is important. If for no other reason, than a profile of Raven....

So even with the lack of hard evidence to point towards ANYONE, thus far, we have to take what we DO have, and keep on rollin'....

Timex said:

. . . I find it a bit strange for someone to assume there was a serious problem just because she didnt respond. UNLESS, Janet had typed a message saying she had heard a noise or something like that.

Click to expand...

Either Janet had typed that she heard a noise, or she had previously told that co-worker the hoo-haw was gonna hit the fan that night -- those are really the ONLY two possibilities I can see IF the story of the concerned co-worker turns out to be accurate.

One scenario pointing to Janet's husband and the other pointing away from him.

Jesstexas said:

Either Janet had typed that she heard a noise, or she had previously told that co-worker the hoo-haw was gonna hit the fan that night -- those are really the ONLY two possibilities I can see IF the story of the concerned co-worker turns out to be accurate.

One scenario pointing to Janet's husband and the other pointing away from him.

Click to expand...

OR..the co-worker is being less than honest about why they went to the home.

Well now, THAT's an angle I hadn't considered. . .

Does anybody know where the link to the On the Record with Greta is? I have some thoughts but want to confirm them first and couldn't find this link in the media thread?

Timex said:

This is why I would really like to know if the story about a co-worker going to the house when Janet didnt respond to an email is accurate.

I know some have speculated perhaps they were IM'ing, not emailing, and thats why the co-worker was alarmed when she didnt respond, but even at that, I find it a bit strange for someone to assume there was a serious problem just because she didnt respond. UNLESS, Janet had typed a message saying she had heard a noise or something like that.

Those of us who utilize the chat here can attest to the fact that often one of us will be chatting and suddenly disappear for sometimes hours. Things come up, we dont always take the time to inform others we will be AFK. None of us would assume danger had befallen our members simply because they stopped responding.

Click to expand...

I'm hesitant even to post this, as it truly only serves to muddy the waters a little more - but, and gang, this truly falls into the realm of

**UNCONFIRMED and NOT VERIFIED**

I was told, outside of WS actually, that a good friend and former co-worker of Janet's (from Eurosport), somehow heard that evening that police had responded to a murder on Ferrand Drive in Durham. (Television news report maybe, as it was around 1100pm, when there is often local news on...just speculating there).

Apparantly, again, from what I was told, she was very upset, and immediately thought of Janet. (Now, who knows, and this is speculation on MY part even...but if this is indeed all true, then perhaps at this point the IM or email thing came into play?? Maybe this person tried to get in touch with Janet? No clue.)

And then, supposedly this person went over to the house on Ferrand, and obviously found the place crawling with LE, etc. Was obviously distraught. Approached even by several members of the media, refused to talk to them, etc.

Now, IF this is all true, one could even then speculate on WHY this person would assume it might be Janet.

I mean if one of us heard about a murder on some particular street where we knew someone, perhaps we would be on edge as well.... Would I immediately think the worst? Who knows. I guess a lot of things would run through my mind... Is this someone with whom I'm particularly close? A family member? Are there many houses on that street? Lots of crime in that area? I'm just thinking out loud, for me personally, what it would take for me to automatically jump in my car and head over there.... Hard to say.

Now, if I in fact were privy to ANYTHING FROM THAT PERSON, DIRECTLY, that would make me leap to the conclusion that the murder victim could be that person, then yes, sure, absolutely, I'd be on my way, IF, I had heard the story, then tried to get ahold of this person first....remember, if I was calling someone at 11, midnight, 1AM, whenever, and I knew they typically are home then (on a weeknight remember), and, that they have a 6 month old baby...I may very well start to get anxious....

And again folks, this is all total heresay and unconfirmed information, coupled with a big ol' load of speculation from me.... so please, only take it for what it's worth...

SouthEastSleuth said:

I'm hesitant even to post this, as it truly only serves to muddy the waters a little more - but, and gang, this truly falls into the realm of

**UNCONFIRMED and NOT VERIFIED**

I was told, outside of WS actually, that a good friend and former co-worker of Janet's (from Eurosport), somehow heard that evening that police had responded to a murder on Ferrand Drive in Durham. (Television news report maybe, as it was around 1100pm, when there is often local news on...just speculating there).

Apparantly, again, from what I was told, she was very upset, and immediately thought of Janet. (Now, who knows, and this is speculation on MY part even...but if this is indeed all true, then perhaps at this point the IM or email thing came into play?? Maybe this person tried to get in touch with Janet? No clue.)

And then, supposedly this person went over to the house on Ferrand, and obviously found the place crawling with LE, etc. Was obviously distraught. Approached even by several members of the media, refused to talk to them, etc.

Click to expand...

OK, now that makes so much sense to me. You are a co-worker of Janet's. Janet is going through these hard times in her life due to her husband's actions. You know the circumstances of her life. You are watching the news and hear "just in".....they talk about a women being found dead on Ferrand Drive! My immediate reaction would be to run to the phone (no answer)....run to the computer and email or IM (no answer).....jump in my car and drive over there. I would not be able to sleep if I knew my friend was possibly dead and I didn't go over there to at least check it out. If she was a co-worker, she probably lived close. I don't know why this didn't hit me before......thank you SES for this speculated unconfirmed post. At least this one makes more sense to me then what else we have come up with on this issue.

Ah ha! I like your theory SES.

SouthEastSleuth said:

Yes, and I certainly hope it did not seem as if I was throwing in the towel here - far from it!

Click to expand...

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that, I probably didn't word my post very well.