Cool Cats
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 10,524
- Reaction score
- 77,762
Especially because there is an invisible print down the hall it only makes sense that there would be footprints leading up to it.And judging by the early descriptions of the crime scene being 'the worst' that investigators had ever seen...
There were likely other footprints.
It seems like there would be visible prints.
Yup.If what you are trying to say is that if there is no more evidence than the fact of BK's trip to PA, the prosecution will have a tough burden to persuade a jury that the trip and the midnight dump in his neighbor's trash is an effort to remove the car from the area of the crime, and to remove evidence from it where no one will suspect, I would tend to agree.
But we know that the trip did not occur in isolation from other evidence - in particular LE's call for information about a white Elantra and all the other evidence in the affidavit.
Virtually all cases are built on circumstances that form a mosaic picture. Taken in isolation they may not seem significant, but a jury will deliberate with full knowledge of all the pieces the prosecution has. And they won't need to see all the pieces to get the picture - beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both studies and my own experience show to my satisfaction that jurors in most cases do a good job of holding one another to account in following the instructions and sticking to the evidence. The one instruction they struggle with is an instruction to ignore evidence that is presented then stricken by order of the judge.
All MOO.
The Attorney General in a case I followed of 8 murders said it was like a giant jigsaw puzzle. They meticulously gathered the circumstantial evidence piece by piece until the giant puzzle was put together and it created a clear picture of the 4 defendant's guilt.
To get eyewitness testimony that matches the suspect enough that he can't be ruled out,
and DNA that rules out 99.9% of the population except for the suspect, is pretty incredible to get at a murder scene.
Then you have the car and cell records.
The defense can't do anything to change the DNA or change the witness statement, but they can offer plausible explanations as to the car and cell phone evidence.
If BK is innocent this shouldn't be hard to do. They could simply explain how this couldn't be BK's car on video, explain why the cell records do not prove BK stalked the victims because there is proof he was doing other things, and the defense can give the logical reason BK turned off his phone coincidentally during the time of the murders.
Of course the defense doesn't have to offer any explanations at all, they can just sit back and let the prosecution accuse BK of things he didn't do and let the jury decide if the prosecution proves it.