To the 'Thinkers' in the community: Here is something to think about in a case that is in "circumstantial evidence purgatory." There is an understandable frustration when the district attorney's office won't arrest or indict. You have a mountain of circumstantial evidence. So a few words of advice on how to get to the tipping point. You can bring a "Walk's Like A Duck, Quacks Like A Duck" case to a jury by seeing it from the DA's point of view ; an investigation can get a 2nd, even 3rd bite at the apple. "Not Guilty" is forever. Every attorney on both sides is terrified of those 12 people. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is a good test for any number of steps along the way. There two types of evidence - objective, and subjective. Say, someone is stabbed in a crowded concert. There are 45 eye-witnesses. Sounds like a good thing until you interview them all and cannot find even TWO that agree on what happened, in what sequence, even what the offender was wearing, along with other descriptors. So, it is both good and bad - subjective. Clients would die if they knew this, but lawyers advise them to take a polygraph (can't be used as evidence) like it's a "rehearsal" or of some other value in their defense. That's crap. Lawyers believe in polygraph results. And most defense lawyers expect their clients to lie to them. It's a tool, and a valuable one. So, why isn't it admissable? It is subjective; results are interpreted. Based on the examiner, the quality of questions, the subject's fitness for the exam; opposing counsel side can produce a professional that will disagree with the results. If dozens of witnesses can be impeached, and a confession isn't obtained, a case is "built" on physical evidence. So how does ANY circumstantial case make it to court? By passing the "beyond a reasonable doubt test." I know who did it, you know, any fool can see...an easy hill to climb. Handwriting analysis? My expert can beat up your expert. Timelines and alibis are like nailing jello to a wall. That is why I get excited about ruling things OUT. If I dumped a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the floor...okay. Work it. What if I said, "Not so fast; the solution to the puzzle only takes 9 pieces - and two of them weren't in the box." That's a circumstantial case. When you strip away what didn't happen you move ball down the field. The best circumstantial evidence can be quantified. That's why I want the envelope to undergo a gas chromatography test. If there is DNA, it's co-mingled as a result of how such evidence was collected. Worthless. Handwriting analyis - no one agrees. But who addresses a Christmas card in pencil, and uses a person's first name as the only return address (weird on it's face since it is mailed to where she lives); who does THAT? Maybe some people. Who addresses an envelope with a pencil, and adds a return address with a different pencil. That isn't reasonable. That is strong, objective, circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial cases are won by the inexplicable nature of and a preponderance of those things. So, you don't need a mountain of those. Nine would be great - but in the absence physical evidence, 7 will do. This did not start out as a fact but it is very powerful one today; 3 girls went shopping and vanished from the face of the earth. There is NO reasonable explanation for that to happen. It's reasonable that a crime took place. It's unreasonable they were randomly plucked out of that parking lot. Statistically - beyond improbable. Almost 43 years rules out plenty of uninvestigatied theories, conspiracies, and the like. It's been suggested on this forum over the years that the family's contact this or that "Unsolved" TV show, new ones come along. There is something all of those stories seem to have in common, no remaining suspects. That's why none of the producers will touch this story. They talk to the police. You'd have to believe FWPD hopes this case is never ​solved to accept they'd run off nationwide exposure. And that's not reasonable. They have a suspect, so there is hope.
