That does not answer the question as that is not the definition of direct evidence.
REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?
- Thread starter gawdess
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
I think most cases are proven through circumstantial evidence, ie DNA,forensics,opportunity,behavior, phone records, etc.
Pattymarie
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 0
OK...what IS the definition of DIRECT evidence...what I mean is...evidence that absolutely ties KC to the crime.....absolutely.... feel free to correct my post title as I am not a legal eagle...
Ok I thought this was a new topic. sorry.
amethyst221
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 0
A supposed eyewitness would be direct evidence, yet that might not prove something so that there was "no doubt." A witness could have bias or other credibility problems, an impairment, etc. that could cause a juror to reject or disbelieve the testimony. What is persuasive, compelling evidence just isn't that simplistic, IMO.
Pattymarie
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 0
So did I...Direct Evidence...absolute proof....DNA, fingerprints, eyewitnesses to the crime...I believe KC is guilty d/t all evidence we have seen so far...but what is there that the defense cannot disprove based on reasonable doubt?
whiteangora
I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,748
- Reaction score
- -3
Sometimes direct evidence is challenged such as an eye witness who is discredited. Even a video tape of the crime can be challenged for it's authenticity. I don't think there are many murder cases with an "absolute" slam dunk, there is enough circumstantial evidence against Casey to keep her off the streets for a long time. imo
If you are asking if there is any direct evidence the answer is no.
DNA,forensics and fingerprints are all circumstantial. There are no eyewitnesses to KC murdering her child, nor is there a confession or a video of the deed.
I think you are asking if there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict.
Circumstantial evidence convicts people every day of the week beyond a reasonable doubt.
I followed a case with a video tape of EVERYTHING and the jury interpreted the gang rape of an unconscious girl differently.
mistrial.
Voodoochild
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Looks like the poll was just changed to ask if there was enough "evidence" vs enough "direct evidence". So my vote is now a yes...there is enough evidence. Circumstantially this case is strong.
Aedrys
If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 6,719
- Reaction score
- 17
The logic leads only to Casey.
The reasoning leads only to Casey.
The motive leads only to Casey.
I've never seen a case in my life with so much evidence against one person. There's no alternate theory that can possibly work. There's nothing pointing even remotely at anyone else.
I think what we need to is to see everything put together in court to be totally convinced. Any jury hearing the Mount Everest of evidence, yes circumstantial but a Mount Everest amount of it, is going to be convinced she did this and no one else did.
I can't wait to see it altogether in court. The visuals, the presentation, the testimony. And if all the defense has is "junk science" and barely plausible excuses that only end up pointing the finger at Casey even more, then she's really sunk. I say LWOP, if she's lucky at this point, and she'll never see the light of day again.
The evidence, while circumstantial, is like a giant iceberg, and Casey is the Titanic. We've only seen the tip of what's to come, and that's why some of us can't say for certain that she did it or don't want to believe she did it. It's already doing a lot of damage to her, but it's not done yet. Once that iceberg is fully revealed, it will destroy Casey and she will go down. I have total faith in that.
Someone once said that not even God could sink the Titanic, and we all know how false that was. It may take a lot of time, frustration, and endless speculation, but the evidence will speak loud and clear, and justice for Caylee will be served.
For me, btw, all it took was seeing one picture of Caylee and one time seeing Casey as she really is, and I was sold on Casey's guilt all the way.
The reasoning leads only to Casey.
The motive leads only to Casey.
I've never seen a case in my life with so much evidence against one person. There's no alternate theory that can possibly work. There's nothing pointing even remotely at anyone else.
I think what we need to is to see everything put together in court to be totally convinced. Any jury hearing the Mount Everest of evidence, yes circumstantial but a Mount Everest amount of it, is going to be convinced she did this and no one else did.
I can't wait to see it altogether in court. The visuals, the presentation, the testimony. And if all the defense has is "junk science" and barely plausible excuses that only end up pointing the finger at Casey even more, then she's really sunk. I say LWOP, if she's lucky at this point, and she'll never see the light of day again.
The evidence, while circumstantial, is like a giant iceberg, and Casey is the Titanic. We've only seen the tip of what's to come, and that's why some of us can't say for certain that she did it or don't want to believe she did it. It's already doing a lot of damage to her, but it's not done yet. Once that iceberg is fully revealed, it will destroy Casey and she will go down. I have total faith in that.
Someone once said that not even God could sink the Titanic, and we all know how false that was. It may take a lot of time, frustration, and endless speculation, but the evidence will speak loud and clear, and justice for Caylee will be served.
For me, btw, all it took was seeing one picture of Caylee and one time seeing Casey as she really is, and I was sold on Casey's guilt all the way.
JSR
Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,250
- Reaction score
- 11
I followed a case with a video tape of EVERYTHING and the jury interpreted the gang rape of an unconscious girl differently.
I know of which case you're referring to and thought it was a horrible miscarriage of justice.
ThommyMac
Former Member
Normally I read all the posts of a thread before posting. Not this one, for a bunch of reasons. Now, I am not in LE or the legal profession. I was an addict who had a great life before I ended up doing 4 1/2 years of a 3-6. The original plea offer was 7 1/2 to 15 YEARS, so you can guess I took things seriously. The reason I bring this up is that they had about a 1/4 on me of what so far has been revealed against her. Folks around the web like to say "it's only circumstantial" like that it has some inherent weakness. Guess what? From my skewed view of the other side of the gavel, most evidence IS circumstantial. The only time relying on solely circumstantial evidence is considered risky is a murder where the body has not been located. Also, think about just how shaky 'witnesses' can be.
Now, I genuinely like being a member of WS, posting, and sharing notes with the online friends I have made here. I watch what I write out of courtesy as much as a desire to never get banned. I am not a lawyer and pretty much everything I say is opinion based on my life so far. The unique conditions, story and cast of characters are the only reasons that this case was not tried and finished a long, long time ago. I am going to stop there BUT run a few things through your minds. Don't bring them up or a flame war and me dismissal may happen but some know EXACTLY what I mean. When the rubber FINALLY meets the road in this case, she is oh so burnt. Thanks for reading this.
Now, I genuinely like being a member of WS, posting, and sharing notes with the online friends I have made here. I watch what I write out of courtesy as much as a desire to never get banned. I am not a lawyer and pretty much everything I say is opinion based on my life so far. The unique conditions, story and cast of characters are the only reasons that this case was not tried and finished a long, long time ago. I am going to stop there BUT run a few things through your minds. Don't bring them up or a flame war and me dismissal may happen but some know EXACTLY what I mean. When the rubber FINALLY meets the road in this case, she is oh so burnt. Thanks for reading this.
debbie0604
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 924
- Reaction score
- 1
The duct tape AND the evidence of the body in the car have been the evidence that has me convinced that she's guilty. No one applies three layers of duct tape over a toddler's mouth and nose for ANY reason except for murder IMO. And human decomposition in the trunk of the car - there is NO smell like human decomposition... it was in HER car and ON her clothes (pants)....
Those two pieces of evidence IMO are strong pieces of evidence IMO. There's more evidence that LE has... but those two pieces are strong IMO. She's guilty.
Those two pieces of evidence IMO are strong pieces of evidence IMO. There's more evidence that LE has... but those two pieces are strong IMO. She's guilty.
I love Leonard, but sometimes I think you can only believe 25% of what he says... unless he is in the confidence of the SA there is no way he could know what they have.
notthatsmart
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,543
- Reaction score
- 0
From what I can see on this forum, there is a huge majority that think Kc is guilty.
1: The defense has not presented their case.
2: There has been no cross examination of any experts.
3: Le has not fallen under scrutiny in trial yet.
4: We now have the murder weapon (Wesh says sources close to the investigation believe it is the duct tape)
5: We do not have the when.
6: We do not have the where.
7: We do not have the motive.
8: We do not have any direct evidence.
9: This last doc dump appears to me to be just a picture show what has already been released. Nothing new.
Once a jury sees both sides with equal time and equal experts, I believe they will see doubt.
On the survey here in this thread, the majority is at 75 % the minority is at 9 % and the unknown is at 15%. With 12 Jurors, that equals hung jury in my opinion. Hung jury without cross, without the defense's side of the story, without expert testimony from both sides. Top that with death penalty. I think she walks even if the jurors are picked from this forum. That is my opinion only.
1: The defense has not presented their case.
2: There has been no cross examination of any experts.
3: Le has not fallen under scrutiny in trial yet.
4: We now have the murder weapon (Wesh says sources close to the investigation believe it is the duct tape)
5: We do not have the when.
6: We do not have the where.
7: We do not have the motive.
8: We do not have any direct evidence.
9: This last doc dump appears to me to be just a picture show what has already been released. Nothing new.
Once a jury sees both sides with equal time and equal experts, I believe they will see doubt.
On the survey here in this thread, the majority is at 75 % the minority is at 9 % and the unknown is at 15%. With 12 Jurors, that equals hung jury in my opinion. Hung jury without cross, without the defense's side of the story, without expert testimony from both sides. Top that with death penalty. I think she walks even if the jurors are picked from this forum. That is my opinion only.
Jolynna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 1,996
The circumstantial evidence here is absolutely sufficient to prove guilt as it is so convincing as to preclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
I stole this line from Valhall's "best I've ever read" article about the power of circumstantial evidence and why there is enough known evidence for jurors to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. Be sure to read and reread EVERY bolded line. Outstanding article, imo.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/
You are missing a piece of your equation. I think she is guilty and will be found so. However I am not convinced she is guilty of premeditated murder. Therefore someone like me would have to choose No, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to convict her of premed murder. But that does not mean I think she will found not guilty as there is a host of lesser included offenses of which she can be convicted.
Also, I think we all realize that we are talking based on the information revealed at this point. When a trial starts and the SA presents their CIC, this poll will begin anew because we will see the whole case as presented from both sides.
- Status