Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
Example: If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. If the person denies the shopping spree and attempts to cover up everything purchased, that is further circumstantial evidence. If the person claims someone else purchased the items and hid them in her closet when the items are discovered, that is even more circumstantial evidence.
Or if a person claims that a family member is missing when in actuality they are deceased, the cover up is circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.
The most important piece of circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case was her BEHAVIOR around the time of the offense. There was a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.
1. When a person uncharacteristically disappears for a MONTH after the disappearance of her child, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
2. When she makes up a story about a FAKE NANNY kidnapping their child at the time her child is missing, that is tremendous CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
3. When she LIES to the POLICE about why her daughter is missing, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.When a person lies to friends and family, claiming their child is ALIVE when they are actually DEAD, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
4. When the words "how to make chloroform" was searched on her computer numerous times and traces of it are found in her trunk, which also smells of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.
5. When the "missing" child ends up in a bag in the woods 6 months later, that is EVIDENCE.
6. When duct tape is found near the face of a dead child, that is EVIDENCE.
7. When the defendant is seen at Blockbuster happily renting videos the evening that her child went missing and/or died, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
8. When the defendant is out dancing after her baby disappears or dies, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
9. When a person appears happy or even "giddy" after the offense, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
10. When a person does not appear SAD when their child is missing or dead, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
11. When a person gets a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" a few days after their child supposedly "accidentally drowned" that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
12. When numerous experts, along with cadaver dogs, testify to the smell of human decomposition being in her trunk, that is EVIDENCE.
13. When numerous experts state that the components found in her trunk are consistent with human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE. When that same car has been ABANDONED by the defendant, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
14. When a hair from Caylee's head is found in the trunk with indication of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.
15. When a mother tells people that she spoke to her DEAD child a month after she died....circumstantial evidence doesn't get much stronger than that. A mother could never claim she spoke to her dead child if she was not covering up her own contribution to her death. It goes against the laws of motherhood and loving a child. Most mothers had rather stay in prison for the rest of their lives rather than utter those words.
The reason why Casey went free is because the jurors were IGNORANT of the LAW. Jennifer Ford is the perfect example of how it happened. She thinks you have to know CAUSE of death in order to convict someone. She thinks there was more evidence that there was a drowning although there was ZERO evidence of a drowning. There was ZERO circumstantial evidence of a drowning. She thinks you have to know HOW someone died in order to convict them. Not all murders have a bullet Ms Ford. Does ANYONE know how Laci Peterson died? No. Yet Scott Peterson still got First Degree Murder and was put on death row. For a very good reason. The jury followed the law and looked at the circumstantial evidence and came to the determination through logic and reasoning that Scott Peterson more than likely is the person who killed his wife. This means they had no REASONABLE DOUBT that anyone else killed her.
People are too busy watching CSI to understand how most murder cases are determined. IT IS THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Just like in the Scott Peterson case. He got the death penalty with MUCH less circumstantial evidence than there was against Casey Anthony. For centuries we have been convicting murderers before forensics even existed. Forensics are quite often not there. Life is not a TV show.
Anyone complaining about people being upset that Casey Anthony went free, if they want to say that there was no evidence against Casey Anthony and that the jury did the right thing....then maybe they should campaigning for Scott Peterson's release from prison because obviously they believe he was wrongly accused.
