It is a doubt that arises at the end of the case based not only on what the evidence tells you but also on what that evidence does not tell you.
BBM
This here is why I am leaning towards a not guilty verdict.
I touched on this earlier but wanted to get a little more specific:
No Motive - i know this is not necessary for a conviction but it was stated very early on by LE that they did not believe this to be a random act. This leads me to believe that LE knew what the motive was. Why has the crown not brought this into play.
Regarding the above, bolded by you--I believe that info is referring to the evidence they heard in court and what that particular evidence does not tell them. Not what they heard on the street before they were selected for jury duty.
When the Crown said that this was not a random act, maybe they were speaking towards his intent?
For first degree murder, the Crown is not required to prove: place; time of death; weapon, or motive.
Whether we like it or not.
The jury will receive instruction from the judge which they must follow.
No Murder weapon - But they did find a knife on CF when he was arrested.. Guess they realized he didn't use it to kill Amber, he also had a gun if he wanted to kill somebody.
Correct, and since we are discussing things the Crown does not have to prove and the jury should not consider--Falconer also once strangled a 54 year old man with coat hanger wire and his bare hands. He was 15 years old.
Due to decomposition, the medical examiner could not tell enough about the type of knife used on Amber to make a match to her countless knife wounds; including many defensive wounds--one so savage that it split her finger.
No Murder scene - I think the evidence points towards Amber being taken to the camper but not murdered there. Why move her? This was a rage killing, but the killer took the time to make her comfortable with painkillers and took the time to move her somewhere where she ended up being killed, gruesomely I might add. and then taken back to the area where she was left in the first place to bury her, but leave her earrings and leggings in plain sight. Where was she in the meantime? And how long was she there before being so gruesomely murdered? If I am on the jury, I want to know this before I convict someone of 1st degree murder.
Again, they don't have to have a murder scene. They have her body and where she was found.
The scene at the camper indicates she was held captive for some time.
I would like to know if he moved Amber before she was deceased, too. We definitely know he at least moved her from the camper to the shallow grave.
Regarding the BBM - I doubt that. Very. very. much.
No kidnapping scene - think about the scenario...Amber has a 2-3 minute walk, the cops are right behind her.. Her boyfriend coming along at any minute ahead of her... People on the streets everywhere... 3 boys also in the area by Big ALS at that time... And she disappears. How? The kidnapping scenario wasn't even brought up during the trial (yet). If I am on the jury I want to know more about this.
He has not been charged with kidnapping.
While I personally find this a very interesting topic to debate; not one of the details that you mention above has been put before the jury. Surely this will not become a topic of debate amongst them. As it should not.
The blue fibers put Falconer at the camper with Amber. That's what the jury needs to agree on--that there is no reasonable doubt that he was there. As there is no reasonable doubt that Amber was there. They can also look at the totality of the evidence, including the cell phone records; and text messages he texted.
Edited to add: Another important piece of evidence that connects Amber not only to the camper, but also to the spot where LE found her; is the towel that was found rolled together with what was left of her tank top and black sweater--that bound her hands as she lay face down. Falconer's step-sister testified that she recognized that towel as coming from the camper.
A jury might find that powerful circumstantial evidence concerning who placed Amber in that grave.
None of CFs DNA or prints on Amber or her clothing or anywhere near the burial sight.
I'm so sorry to say this, but Amber was buried naked in clay mud. For at least two weeks she lay in that ground. That can destroy evidence.
A box of latex gloves were found in the back of Falconer's vehicle. To some, that might speak volumes.
The jury has to consider Falconer's familiarity with the location; and whether or not they consider it important that Amber's shoe was found in the bushes by one of his girlfriend's apartment; and her earrings were also found in the bushes. There is a pattern here--if they care to see it.
And that girl looks strikingly like Amber, I might add. I think she is lucky to be alive. I think his motive is centered around her, btw. This particular girl didn't mind telling him about other men that she had. He didn't like that one little bit.
No sign Amber was ever in either of the cars CF was known to drive - Actually we didn't even hear anything about the blue elantra but we know it was seized. For some reason TR said he was driving the elantra that night but all his other girls said he was driving impala... Hmmm
That's exactly what it is--a hmmm. The Crown does not have to prove or disprove every tiny detail to our satisfaction. That is an impossible standard, and unfair to expect.
Why haven' t we heard from the friend CR was with the morning after Amber disappeared. If I am on jury I want to hear from this guy..
Why haven't we heard from the 4th girlfriend RD? Her name was brought up a few times... We heard from the other girlfriends... Seems this is the one he was closest too.. Why not her?
I want to hear from these two people, too. Right now, I'm expecting them to be witnesses for his defence.
That's the only reason I can think of as to why the Crown wouldn't have called them.
We know CF was in the area where Amber disappeared from. (Or at least his phone was)
We know he has a connection to the camper Amber was taken to.
We know he is familiar with area her body was buried.
We know he was unaccounted for during a critical time period.
We know her blood was found on a shirt in a bag that was in another bag that was in his unsecured car.
These points have been proven with some forensic evidence and some circumstantial evidence. I'm pretty sure the judge will instruct the jury to give the same weight to circumstantial evidence as they give to forensic evidence. They are allowed to use their common sense to connect the dots.
BBM - Regarding the very last point, the jury heard from a witness that said she saw Falconer put that bag in his vehicle. It was the size and color that he wore often; it had blue fibers on it that matched fibers found on a blanket, in the camper that Amber was held in. The jury has to look at that and they have to decide what weight to give it. It is enough, if they all agree.
I don't think the crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial is not over yet; but right now, I do disagree.
Here is a good link, explaining what the Crown needs to prove.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_cn_offence231_2_en.asp
ullhair::jail:
