State v Bradley Cooper 3-21-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
So who do you think these "I'm so rich I don't have to worry with these diamonds but I'm going to take every other item on her body except this sports bra that her husband will be able to identify that she was wearing even though he didn't see her before she left to run" were?

Good point, but I don't think that people committing sexual assault automatically steal jewelry from the victim. I don't see the earrings as meaning much of anything. Furthermore, if they were worth anything, and Brad kept the necklace, he would also have kept the earrings. If he left expensive earrings but kept the necklace ... that makes no sense.
 
From law.jrank.org

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
 
You're wrong.

Actually I'm not wrong. If his blood and skin were found under her nails it is not direct. They could have had a hot, "intimate moment" that had nothing to do with her death. She could have left for a jog in the morning and the skin and blood would have nothing to do with her death. So that makes it circumstantial unless an eyewitness was there to see her scratching him during the course of a murder. That's direct.

If his shoeprints are found it's still circumstantial. Someone else with the same shoes and shoe size could have created those prints. Unless an eyewitness saw him creating those prints, it's circumstantial.
 
Good point, but I don't think that people committing sexual assault automatically steal jewelry from the victim. I don't see the earrings as meaning much of anything. Furthermore, if they were worth anything, and Brad kept the necklace, he would also have kept the earrings. If he left expensive earrings but kept the necklace ... that makes no sense.

So far there is zero evidence of a sexual assault. That makes it even worse for the husband that has all the means, motive and opportunity.
 
Okay, you know what I'm saying. I'm talking about physical evidence linking him to the crime. And you are wrong that the majority of cases are all circumstantial.

If they found BC's blood and skin under her nails and scratches on his face or neck that would not be "circumstantial". It would be direct evidence. Incorrect. That is an example of circumstantial evidence

If they found footprints matching his shoes at the scene that would be direct evidence. Incorrect. That is an example of circumstantial evidence

Sigh...

This comes up all the time it seems.

Here's a definition and some info that may help illuminate what I'm saying:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

"circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints or footprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial."

"Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist."
 
Actually I'm not wrong. If his blood and skin were found under her nails it is not direct. They could have had a hot, "intimate moment" that had nothing to do with her death. She could have left for a jog in the morning and the skin and blood would have nothing to do with her death. So that makes it circumstantial unless an eyewitness was there to see her scratching him during the course of a murder. That's direct.

If his shoeprints are found it's still circumstantial. Someone else with the same shoes and shoe size could have created those prints. Unless an eyewitness saw him creating those prints, it's circumstantial.

You're still wrong. I'm talking about HIS shoes, the exact imprint/wear. A shoe print can be like a finger print.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this, because there is no point.
 
You're still wrong. I'm talking about HIS shoes, the exact imprint/wear. A shoe print can be like a finger print.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this, because there is no point.

There IS a point. One of you needs to understand what the correct definition of circumstantial evidence is.
 
Sigh... right back to you Sleuthy. You are the one who started this argument.
 
Why do I have to "base" it on anything? It's just a "possible" scenario of a random murder.

Isn't that called mud slinging.. for the defense.. I believe that is the slang term for it.. and they could totally say that in closing because of the "witness" that said they saw some guys in a white van following her when she was jogging..
 
Isn't that called mud slinging.. for the defense.. I believe that is the slang term for it.. and they could totally say that in closing because of the "witness" that said they saw some guys in a white van following her when she was jogging..

No, not mud slinging. Who is the "mud" being directed to?

Are you saying this scenario was not possible?
 
You're wrong too!

So... You think it's ok to have two opinions of what circumstantial evidence is? ?

We may be armchair sleuthers, but we try our best to get our facts straight and we usually appreciate other sleuthers' assistance if we've got it wrong, so that we can work with the assistance of facts towards the truth.
 
Sunshine,

Read the legal definition of direct vs. circumstantial evidence.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect in how you are defining these terms.

I understand you are looking for STRONG circumstantial evidence that will link the defendant to the crime scene and/or the dump scene.

There is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in this case. No eyewitness, no videotape of the murder or dumping of the body, and no confession by the perp. One or more of those would be 'direct' evidence. Everything else *is* circumstantial evidence.

Nothing you say is going to change the legal definition of these terms.
 
No, not mud slinging. Who is the "mud" being directed to?

Are you saying this scenario was not possible?

Meaning that the defense is throwing things out there all over the place for the jury so they have reasonable doubt.. like " the mailman did it or it could have been her lover JP".. that is what they will "throw out there" at closing. Just saying you had a good example of what they may use at closing..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
302
Total visitors
527

Forum statistics

Threads
608,000
Messages
18,232,950
Members
234,270
Latest member
bolsa
Back
Top