Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
There is definitely circumstantial evidence pointing to them planting and tainting. And after you take out all the tainted evidence all you had was circumstantial with Avery. SO if you take out the key and the rav that directly connected him to the car. If you can convict a man of murder on circumstantial evidence. Couldnt you convict the cops on circumstantial evidence?
Just wondering? JMO you know all that jazz.
There's no circumstantial evidence showing planting. Suggesting it must have happened is not evidence. Opining the cops had it in for SA is not evidence. Where's the witness(es) who heard the cops admit to something? Anyone? Where was the key for Lenk or Colburn to get it? No evidence was presented on that.
If you understood the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence you'd realize it's direct evidence that has gotten suspects wrongfully convicted in cases in the past. Circumstantial evidence is often quite powerful. Under the law, both types of evidence are considered to be equally important. The vast majority of murders do not have direct evidence. Most murders have no eye witness to the murder, no video of the murder taking place, and no confession by the murderer. Those 3 things are direct evidence. Everything else, including forensic evidence is circumstantial. And it's circumstantial evidence (DNA) that often gets someone's sentence overturned.
I question direct evidence because an eye witness to a crime can be mistaken. A confession may have been coerced. Direct evidence is what's been completely discounted in TH's case: can't trust what BD said he saw or admitted because it was coerced. Can't believe BD's confession.
So yes, a conviction can be obtained on "just" circumstantial evidence and most cases are only circumstantial.