Circumstantial Evidence can prove anyone did anything

Physical Evidence, however, can only point to the truth

Yeah, Physical Evidence is rare, but if we are going to put someone to death, or lock them up for life - I'd rather we knew for sure, rather than thought "she/he probably did it."

Remember the Ramseys? Circumstantial evidence could have "proved" they killed Jon Benet. Only they didn't. Many years later, and after the death of the mother (and everyone from South Park to Larry King KNOWING they killed her) we find out that, gee - I guess they DIDN'T do it.

But by then it was too late.

Fuck circumstantial evidence.

It can be used to prove anything.

All you need to convict is a tip.

LOL

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes very compelling, and leads to findings of truth. Other times, as in this Casey Anthony case, it is woefully inadequate, when not deliberately twisted and contrived by prosecutors. It is case dependent, as our system well-recognizes: the nature and connections, and validity, and quality and quantity of the circumstantial evidence is what makes it valuable or not.

But the OP wasn't saying circumstantial evidence isn't useful, as far as I understood.

Larissa Schuster got convicted on very compelling circumstantial evidence (her company bought a lot of acid and a steel barrel, which the victim was found in).

Here's an interesting read if you aren't aware of the case: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/larissa-schuster/1-a-joyful-married-life.html

There was a confession by her cohort but it wasn't allowed, so they had to build a case entirely from the ground up even though they did know unquestionably that she did it.

He'll probably get out in 15, possibly 20 tops.

Wikipedia has good coverage of the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

Apparently a lot of the evidence had to be thrown out or was insufficient (DNA was poorly dealt with, etc). He took the stand, though (thinking he could outsmart the prosecutor?) and it put a nail in his story to the point where he basically decided to make a plea deal after the guilty sentence. I was actually surprised that they went with the plea deal, myself, but apparently in missing body cases it's fairly common.

Still can't believe I have an email from him a long time ago archived somewhere. Creepy.

I have a feeling that the tv shows such as CSI, NCIS are introducing a level of physical evidence that in real life is impossible to do. Juries may be expecting that level of evidence though.
If all it takes is for the body to be so decomposed that one cannot tell cause of death, and there are no first hand witnesses to a crime, then we are in big trouble.
If my child is dead and later found in a swamp and my car smells like a dead body - even according to parents - I would say that is convincing circumstanial evidence that when linked with more evidence is compelling.

While that may be an oversimplification, in the end it ensures (at least on one level) that no one is wrongly convicted

Of course, go tell that to Amanda Knox

Eye witnesses are rare. Scott Peterson sits on death row on far less evidence than was presented against Anthony. The Ramsey case was reopened late last year. We will see if anything results.

as to who and or what was seen.

can be notoriously unreliable.

A surprising number of cases later reversed by physical (e.g. DNA) evidence included confessions by the innocent suspect. There are a lor of reasons for this, including certain police techniques, suggestible suspects, etc.

circumstantial. Fingerprints and DNA found at a scene are, in fact, circumstantial evidence.
If only direct evidence is used then only those people who are witnessed doing a crime, by eye witnesses would be convicted.
And eye witness testimony isn't 100% either.

Almost all evidence is circumstantial, be it physical evidence or otherwise.

that's where a mixture of logic and intuition come in, I think.

Circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case, but...

Logic says the child didn't kill herself.

Logic also says nobody kidnapped her and killed her because otherwise her mother would have reported her missing.

Is it logical to think that what Linda Burdick Drain said is true? That nobody covers up an accident to make it look like a murder? It's logical to me.

those are just a few things, and I'm not going to go through all of it.

Intuition...after all the logic is put on the table, my own intuition tells me that, based on Casey's demeanor and some other things, like the fact that her parents were looking for Caylee when she wasn't, she is a major suspect.

The evidence would have been enough for me to convict her...on manslaughter, at least. And I heard a defense trial lawyer this AM say the same thing...that if she were on the jury, they would STILL be there hashing it out.

Unless you have photos or an eyewitness, like someone else said, most of it really is circumstantial. To say that the Prosecution didn't prove their case...well..they didn't prove it to that particular jury. To a different jury things might have gone quite differently. Nobody knows for sure.

Certainly a death sentence on most likely or probably is never going to happen.

So that would mean almost no crimes could ever be proved.

The problem is that circumstantial evidence requires logical reasoning which seems to be beyond most Americans these days.

I mean, who else would've?

But we know she didn't

We know the son, or the father didn't as well

And people are still examining the evidence to try to find the killer.

If logic had dictated that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, the district attorney would have brought charges.