Of course you know that circumstantial evidence is used to convict people all the time...it's a TV myth that it's not.
I notice you didn't answer my question regarding your personal belief... ;-)
New to this case and new to the forum
- Thread starter Alyssa Edwards
- Start date
Of course you know that circumstantial evidence is used to convict people all the time...it's a TV myth that it's not.
I notice you didn't answer my question regarding your personal belief... ;-)
1. I didn't tell you what sealed the deal for you. I asked, hence the 2 question marks.
2. There's zero evidence to suggest TH committed this crime.
"All the time" -- how can you quantify this? Do you have a source, or is this simply your opinion. Even if that is so (which is debatable), that doesn't necessarily justify it. "Two wrongs don't make a right," etc.
Thought I answered your question in the next post after, but my personal belief is that they very well could have done it, but that there isn't enough evidence (for me) to definitively prove they did. Think you knew that already.
Circumstantial evidence:
Fingerprint analysis, blood analysis and DNA analysis.
How often are people convicted on these types of evidence? All the time.
The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence
"Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. "
Is circumstantial evidence enough for conviction?
Fair enough -- I misused the word "circumstantial" in my previous post then, as what I considered "circumstantial" was less encompassing. I don't think it's "one size fits all," though. Technically, by your definition, OJ Simpson prosecutors only had circumstantial evidence, but there was a mountain (a true mountain) of it. This case, not so much.
Last edited:
Right, but you did introduce it into the discussion.
Correct. Probably more accurate to state "according to the definition".
It was more expedient to just say "your definition," after all, this is only a message board, where there are much worse grammatical sins for you to parse out.
I didn't want anyone thinking this was "my definition" - as in something I came up with. I just wanted to clarify that. Anyway, onward.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
i just never believed the crime scene was what it was.
during the whole month of may where they had all day and night to check out that ditchbank, nobody ever said out loud "hey this is the place where the victims were attacked, killed, raped, and mutilated". you know that famous photo of the alleged crime scene? with the red markings on the ground, marking shoeprints..?
supposedly 5 or 6 people were in a struggle there, but the twigs on the ground seem undamaged.
jessie has seen "blood fly", yet the leaves and moss and the tree stump are relatively clean. soil samples from that place were sent to the lab a week after jessies statements. they sprayed it with luminol and couldn't detect blood.
police concluded that they just wiped it all clean with their boots.
jessie said he left first but how come there are no boot prints (boots found at echols, and i believe jasons too) but only the sort of sneakers prints that jessie wore... makes no sense, too. the only shoeprints that were found were of tennis shoes size 42, i think that might be size 9 or 9,5 in usa.
during the whole month of may where they had all day and night to check out that ditchbank, nobody ever said out loud "hey this is the place where the victims were attacked, killed, raped, and mutilated". you know that famous photo of the alleged crime scene? with the red markings on the ground, marking shoeprints..?
supposedly 5 or 6 people were in a struggle there, but the twigs on the ground seem undamaged.
jessie has seen "blood fly", yet the leaves and moss and the tree stump are relatively clean. soil samples from that place were sent to the lab a week after jessies statements. they sprayed it with luminol and couldn't detect blood.
police concluded that they just wiped it all clean with their boots.
jessie said he left first but how come there are no boot prints (boots found at echols, and i believe jasons too) but only the sort of sneakers prints that jessie wore... makes no sense, too. the only shoeprints that were found were of tennis shoes size 42, i think that might be size 9 or 9,5 in usa.
leslievernon, those red flags were marking blood (as you will see in the link below).
I don't think there were many twigs on the ground to begin with, as this was May. Perhaps in at the end of summer, you would have found more twigs.
Luminol did detect blood, separate from where the bodies were lain by Ridge. This is a supporter myth.
Luminol Photos and Reference Photos
From the photo of one of the shoe prints, it looks to be closer to size 11 or 11-1/2.
I don't think there were many twigs on the ground to begin with, as this was May. Perhaps in at the end of summer, you would have found more twigs.
Luminol did detect blood, separate from where the bodies were lain by Ridge. This is a supporter myth.
Luminol Photos and Reference Photos
From the photo of one of the shoe prints, it looks to be closer to size 11 or 11-1/2.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
i mean this picture and as far as i know the red markings marked a shoeprint. that is the acutal crime scene according to jessie and WMPD. ... was i wrong all the time and the red markings were there because it was for luminol testing (cause they couldn't see blood with the naked eye)... hey, maybe i'm wrong.
the place where they laid the bodies on the ground, there was blood detected..
the place where they laid the bodies on the ground, there was blood detected..
Yes, I believe you're mistaken. Like I said, if you download the 101 picture file, you will clearly see in many photos that the red flags are marking where blood was found -- not footprints. Even if you don't want to download that file (for whatever reason), you can still clearly see this under the "Luminol Reference Photos" section (photos 1,2,3 especially) I just provided in my post above.
There was blood in the places where the bodies were lain of course (in the ditch itself and the sides of the bank) -- which was marked -- but there was also blood elsewhere -- which was also marked -- all by red flags.
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
reg. luminol:
i looked at it at callahan, don't worry (download folder).. yes i remember them. thx for providing the link though.
(what, you can actually see if i clicked a link of yours or not...? interesting
yes, i'm wrong, and i'm just thinking.. i could have written "no blood was detected" in my notes, because of that report:
"RESULTS OF ANALYSES:
The soil samples E1, E2, and E3, recovered from the crime scene were sprayed with
luminol, heated and then resprayed. A positive luminol reaction was not detected for the
presence of blood. Results were inconclusive."
i looked at it at callahan, don't worry (download folder).. yes i remember them. thx for providing the link though.
(what, you can actually see if i clicked a link of yours or not...? interesting
yes, i'm wrong, and i'm just thinking.. i could have written "no blood was detected" in my notes, because of that report:
"RESULTS OF ANALYSES:
The soil samples E1, E2, and E3, recovered from the crime scene were sprayed with
luminol, heated and then resprayed. A positive luminol reaction was not detected for the
presence of blood. Results were inconclusive."
It's impossible for blood to have not been detected because the middle "flag" represented where MM was lain -- so either that report you're citing is talking about 3 different areas, or blood couldn't be "conclusive" based on when testing occurred. But again, the middle flag would have definitely been blood, as it was marked on the back of the photo with something like "where body was laid." The two outer flags were marked as "questioned area."
leslievernon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 168
if we knew exactly from where E1,2,3 was from... also, some of the links on callys just won't work anymore.
but let's go through it:
either way... if the boys were killed there, OR, if they were killed somewhere else, and then were brought to the ditch... in either way, the killer is occupied with 1 body at a time, leaving the other 2 bleeding bodies on the ground.. of course they will find blood there.
... i think that was my thought back then, reg. the blood and the luminol results.
but let's go through it:
either way... if the boys were killed there, OR, if they were killed somewhere else, and then were brought to the ditch... in either way, the killer is occupied with 1 body at a time, leaving the other 2 bleeding bodies on the ground.. of course they will find blood there.
... i think that was my thought back then, reg. the blood and the luminol results.
Disagree -- if they were killed somewhere else, and brought to the ditch, the other 2 bodies would be left in the vehicle he was using.