11-14-2004, 05:38 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,754
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Furious_Female
If you wake up, go outside and everything is wet; the grass, the trees, the road, that's sufficient evidence to say it rained out, even if you didn't see it happen.
In law school they use that example as what circumstantial evidence is. No physical evidence, maybe not. He committed the perfect murder... almost.
He is a psychopath and that's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact based on his emotionless behavior, actions and countless lies.
98% of murders are committed by people the victims know. (fact) A random person killed a 7 and a half month pregnant woman on Christmas eve in the short window of time her husband just happened to be gone and had time to dispose her body in broad daylight in the bay where he happened to be "fishing" an hour and a half away? Then while she is considered a missing person still, he sells her car and wants to sell their home. Where exactly was she supposed to come home to if he thought she was alive?
In the US, you don't even need a body to convict someone of murder. Sometimes a little common sense goes a lot further than a smoking gun.
|
My understanding is that circumstantial evidence is not enough to convice and physical evidence is required. There is no evidence directly linking Scott to the murders, as far as I know. All you have are sets of circumstances that indicate that but don't describe it beyond reasonable doubt.
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."
|
|
|