GUILTY KY - Savannah Spurlock, 22, left 'The Other Bar' with 2 men, Richmond, 4 Jan 2019 #7 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

marcolepsy said:
What's up with DS's appearance at his arraignment? I've seen a few screencaps where he looks like he's an extra from Zed's gang in Police Academy 2 - mohawk, bare tatted arms, bulletproof vest. Is that the kind of courtroom presentation you get from a public defender? Way to not look shady. Where're the Casey Anthony / Kelly Marie Cochran sweaters and Jodi Arias studious glasses?
Click to expand...
That may come later, during the trial. There is no jury to impress yet. Imo
 
bwt42 said:
COD & circumstantial evidence are two different things. Circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually it's part of the CE.

All evidence entered into any trial is CE. The only evidence that isn't CE is direct eye testimony which can be faulty eye witness testimony.

The MOD has been classified as a homicide already by the ME who did they autopsy. Imo.

That is why he is now charged with homicide/murder of Savannah. The results of her autopsy, and classification as homicide is why he is charged with murder now along with the other charges.

The homicide determination will become a part of all the CE entered at trial when the ME testifies for the state to present evidence to show the jurors he murdered SS.

It is one out of three required elements that must be proven BARD by all prosecutors no matter the state it happened in.

In this case it will be no different than any other homicide trial.

1. They must prove BARD the deceased victim is Savannah.

2. SSs death was due to homicide BARD

3. David Sparks, the accused, is guilty BARD of the offense of murder as charged of SS.

No prosecutor has to prove BARD anything else, other than those three legally bound requirements.

The majority of our posters are already aware of those requirements from following other trials here even recent ones.

Including many trials where the condition of the bodies when located were unable to be determined how the murderer murdered their victims.

Imo, However, in this particular case the ME does know how DS murdered Savannah.

I also have no doubt the ME testified in front of the JG before them rendering an indictment for murder charges, and laid out how she was murdered.

Its really irrelevant white noise to the case for it to be released publicly, since evidence is presented in a courtroom, and not meant to quell the curiosity of the general public.

This is not the only case where it wasn't released to the public nor will it be the last.

Jmhoo
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Actually it's part of the CE.

All evidence entered into any trial is CE. The only evidence that isn't CE is direct eye testimony which can be faulty eye witness testimony.

The MOD has been classified as a homicide already by the ME who did they autopsy. Imo.

That is why he is now charged with homicide/murder of Savannah. The results of her autopsy, and classification as homicide is why he is charged with murder now along with the other charges.

The homicide determination will become a part of all the CE entered at trial when the ME testifies for the state to present evidence to show the jurors he murdered SS.

It is one out of three required elements that must be proven BARD by all prosecutors no matter the state it happened in.

In this case it will be no different than any other homicide trial.

1. They must prove BARD the deceased victim is Savannah.

2. SSs death was due to homicide BARD


3. David Sparks, the accused, is guilty BARD of the offense of murder as charged of SS.

No prosecutor has to prove BARD anything else, other than those three legally bound requirements.

The majority of our posters are already aware of those requirements from following other trials here even recent ones.

Including many trials where the condition of the bodies when located were unable to be determined how the murderer murdered their victims.

Imo, However, in this particular case the ME does know how DS murdered Savannah.

I also have no doubt the ME testified in front of the JG before them rendering an indictment for murder charges, and laid out how she was murdered.

Its really irrelevant white noise to the case for it to be released publicly, since evidence is presented in a courtroom, and not meant to quell the curiosity of the general public.

This is not the only case where it wasn't released to the public nor will it be the last.

Jmhoo
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for COD being CE as you stated. I would think it's DE. tia
 
bwt42 said:
Do you have a link for COD being CE as you stated. I would think it's DE. tia
Click to expand...
Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without any interpretation of the circumstances. There is no need for inferences or assumptions.
For example; an eyewitness who observed the person committing the crime, surveillance footage of person carrying out the crime, or a confession.

Circumstantial, or indirect evidence, is all other evidence. It proves nothing by itself, it's the interpretation of the circumstances along with other evidence that can prove guilt without a doubt.

Imo
 
MsBetsy said:
Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without any interpretation of the circumstances. There is no need for inferences or assumptions.
For example; an eyewitness who observed the person committing the crime, surveillance footage of person carrying out the crime, or a confession.

Circumstantial, or indirect evidence, is all other evidence. It proves nothing by itself, it's the interpretation of the circumstances along with other evidence that can prove guilt without a doubt.

Imo
Click to expand...
So, if the medical examiner says the cause of death was a gunshot to the head that would be circumstantial evidence?
 
molly1255 said:
What amazing character it takes to be in the midst of such an overwhelming personal loss to think of others who have missing loved ones and try to help them.

Much respect, condolences and prayers for Marie and Savannah's family.
Click to expand...

I agree. I genuinely think her aunt did a really good job with PR early on. Not just her aunt, the whole family. Her aunt kind of took the lead as the family spokesperson. I hate calling it that but that’s essentially what it was. They managed to ignore a lot of hate and ignorance and instead of getting discouraged, they kept advocating for Savannah.
 
jULIA_bEE said:
Savannah Spurlock's family is turning a tragedy into advocacy for other missing persons
Click to expand...

I was quite certain this would be the "good" from the awful experience they had. Lisa has a talent for it... she tolerated no bad stuff on her site and I know that takes a toll (to hear constant negativity towards your missing loved one) but she did that with such grace. I have the utmost respect.
There are many families of missing/murdered people who have turned their pain to action. So many. Off the top of my head, Ed Smart, Marc Klaus, Mark Lunsford, Linda Walker, Marianne Asher-Chapman... to name just a few.
 
bwt42 said:
So, if the medical examiner says the cause of death was a gunshot to the head that would be circumstantial evidence?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, in my opinion, because that alone does not indicate who was holding the gun. That still has to be proven. It's physical or forensic evidence that proves the victim was shot. The person may also have stab wounds that could have led to death also and sometimes the ME can't determine which one actually caused the person to die.

A person actually witnessing a shooting would be an eye- witness, and their testimony would be direct evidence.
So even a "smoking gun," is not really direct evidence, unless one can prove who was actually holding the gun.

I always think of direct evidence as something that can be seen or heard by everyone and therefore there is little doubt of any other explanation.
Direct evidence needs no extra assumptions. If there is a recording of a person admitting to a crime, as long as it's clear that it's the killer who is talking, there is no need to make further inferences. Imo
 
bwt42 said:
According to this article COD would be direct evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you are seeing that. It specifically says direct evidence is when a witness is called to testify who has actually seen the crime occur. (there were no surveillance cameras back in 1915.) The ME only determines the COD. They did not see it happen. The body helps to tell the story of what happened, which is combined with other evidence to prove who committed the crime.

Directly following the example of witness testimony as direct evidence, it goes on to say that all other evidence is circumstantial.

A quick Google search will lead to a variety of current articles explaining and defining all types of evidence, which might be a little easier to understand than something written in 1915, but the definition remains the same. Imo
 
MsBetsy said:
I'm not sure where you are seeing that. It specifically says direct evidence is when a witness is called to testify who has actually seen the crime occur. (there were no surveillance cameras back in 1915.) The ME only determines the COD. They did not see it happen. The body helps to tell the story of what happened, which is combined with other evidence to prove who committed the crime.

Directly following the example of witness testimony as direct evidence, it goes on to say that all other evidence is circumstantial.

A quick Google search will lead to a variety of current articles explaining and defining all types of evidence, which might be a little easier to understand than something written in 1915, but the definition remains the same. Imo
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that I'm missing something in trying to understand the difference between DE & CE.

Most definitions of DE I've seen says DE does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. To me COD would fit this.
 
bwt42 said:
It's quite possible that I'm missing something in trying to understand the difference between DE & CE.

Most definitions of DE I've seen says DE does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. To me COD would fit this.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I know how you are thinking about this.

The conclusion in this situation is solving the crime. (Who, what, where, how and when.)

The purpose of the evidence is to piece together a story in order to prove that a crime has been committed and to prove the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The COD only tells us how the victim died, it is part of figuring out the conclusion. We can still make inferences, or speculate that someone else besides the suspect caused the victims death.

Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the suspect commit the crime (assuming they are reliable)
Or better yet, surveillance footage of the person carrying out the crime. We can't make any other assumptions in order to arrive at the conclusion.

At least that's how I understand it.
 
MsBetsy said:
Ok, I think I know how you are thinking about this.

The conclusion in this situation is solving the crime. (Who, what, where, how and when.)

The purpose of the evidence is to piece together a story in order to prove that a crime has been committed and to prove the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The COD only tells us how the victim died, it is part of figuring out the conclusion. We can still make inferences, or speculate that someone else besides the suspect caused the victims death.

Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the suspect commit the crime (assuming they are reliable)
Or better yet, surveillance footage of the person carrying out the crime. We can't make any other assumptions in order to arrive at the conclusion.

At least that's how I understand it.
Click to expand...

To branch off of this a bit, I was surprised to learn a week or two ago that DNA is NOT DE. I was watching some cold case or forensic files or some such thing, the State got their conviction but a defense appeal was agreed with and it was retried if I recall correctly. The problem? The State throughout the trial I believe or at least at some points told the jury DNA is direct evidence and it is actually not considered that.

Thankfully, the man was convicted again but it was interesting, as was the fact a new trial was granted because of it. I guess that goes to show that even State attorneys did not realize they had it wrong as I doubt they wanted to go through two trials or see two paid for.

I found it interesting anyhow.

Jmo.
 
MsBetsy said:
Ok, I think I know how you are thinking about this.

The conclusion in this situation is solving the crime. (Who, what, where, how and when.)

The purpose of the evidence is to piece together a story in order to prove that a crime has been committed and to prove the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The COD only tells us how the victim died, it is part of figuring out the conclusion. We can still make inferences, or speculate that someone else besides the suspect caused the victims death.

Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the suspect commit the crime (assuming they are reliable)
Or better yet, surveillance footage of the person carrying out the crime. We can't make any other assumptions in order to arrive at the conclusion.

At least that's how I understand it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I think it's finally sinking in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 2,117 (members: 137, guests: 1,980)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
1,980
Total visitors
2,117
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,717
Messages
18,128,748
Members
231,133
Latest member
USE
Back
Top