Thresholds for guilty verdicts:

[Adam]

Circumstantial evidence only.

One piece of forensic evidence.

Witness evidence only.

A combination of above.

----------

The Bamber case has 76 pieces of forensic evidence and over 100 pieces of circumstantial evidence!

Can only assume supporters will only accept a Bamber death bed confession. Maybe.

[David1819]

Adam if you are going to keep pulling a number of "pieces of evidence" out of your arse, at least keep it the same number.

My 74 pieces

70 pieces

62 pieces

100 pieces

over 200 pieces

68 sourced pieces of forensic evidence.

Well there are 19 pieces of foremsic evidence

76 pieces of forensic evidence

over 30 pieces in this case.

20 pieces of forensic evidence

66 pieces of evidence

There are 17 pieces of forensic evidence

Perhaps around 200 pieces

50 pieces of forensic evidence showing it wasn't Sheila. Which means it was Bamber.

There are around 30 pieces of incriminating evidence against Bamber.

It's 67 pieces.

my breakdown of the forensic evidence had 28 pieces.

[Adam]

Adam if you are going to keep pulling a number of "pieces of evidence" out of your arse, at least keep it the same number.

Yes David. The amount has gone up the longer I have studied the case.

Which is to be expected.

[David1819]

How many "pieces of evidence" will Adam allege exists this week?

57?

89?

62?

104?

Place your bets now.

[Adam]

How many "pieces of evidence" will Adam allege exists this week?

57?

89?

62?

104?

Place your bets now.

At the moment it is -

76 forensic. Sourced from COA.

200 overall.

----------

It won't go down. Likely to go up.

[Adam]

Seems that Sherlock has accepted guilt.

He is posting about things being introduced to create the 1% needed to produce 'reasonable doubt' in enough jurors. 

But appreciate a few people won't accept 76/200 pieces. Some support for non evidence reasons.

[Steve_uk]

 I'm not sure who it was who said: circumstantial evidence is like a rope: one strand in itself cannot hold a weight, but several strands binding together may do so.

[Rob_]

I'm not sure who it was who said: circumstantial evidence is like a rope: one strand in itself cannot hold a weight, but several strands binding together may do so.

The problem with this case is there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is also very weak.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

[David1819]

The problem with this case is there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is also very weak.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

Circumstantial evidence (inference/chain of reasoning from facts) Its been alleged there is too much or a 'mountain' of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Its become apparent to me that those making such a claim do not understand what constitutes circumstantial evidence or how to construct a circumstantial case.

Here I will use another 1985 murder case that also has an alternative suspect as an example.

Why is Gerhartsreiter guilty of the 1985 murder of John Sohus? I give you just three pieces of circumstantial evidence. )

No1 - No pipes or plumbing where the body was found.

Dana Farrar, who knew Gerhartsreiter as Chichester, recalls noticing new turf and disturbed earth in the backyard of the Sohus family home on Lorian Road. She said Gerhartsreiter attributed it to a plumbing problem.

The remains were in the same area where Ms. Farrar had noticed disturbed earth in 1985. There were no pipes or plumbing in this area of the property.

No2 - A chainsaw and the victim being cut into pieces.

A few months before the Sohuses disappearance, defendant borrowed a chainsaw from a church friend, and asked another acquaintance from church where he could dispose of drums of chemicals. Defendant returned the chainsaw to his friend about a month after police took Mrs. Sohus’s sister’s missing person report.

Although the prosecution did not try to prove defendant actually used the chainsaw to dismember Mr.Sohus’s body, the jury could have reasonably inferred that from the evidence that the lower half of the body was discovered inside a fiberglass drum.

There was no evidence at trial that the chainsaw was used to dismember Mr. Sohus. Nevertheless, the prosecutor represented, and the trial court agreed, that the chainsaw evidence was relevant “to show that at the time these actions were all occurring in 1985, the defendant’s mental state was such that he was trying to figure out how to dispose of things such as bodies by asking about drums of chemicals, by borrowing chain saws, which he normally wouldn’t use in his normal habits and customs.” In fact, witnesses testified they never saw defendant operating power tools or doing any sort of physical labor, not even gardening.

No3 - The type of bags used to place the body parts in.

Following high school, defendant attended the University of Wisconsin.

Forensic scientist Lynne Herold, with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, determined that the fiberglass drum was buried three feet from the surface of the ground. The Site A bags included a “University Book Store at Milwaukee . . . Wisconsin” bag, which was the type of bag used at the bookstore at the University of Wisconsin.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/16/gerhartsreitercomplaint.redact.pdf

[Adam]

The problem with this case is there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is also very weak.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

The direct evidence is the 76 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila.

[Adam]

The problem with this case is there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is also very weak.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

The circumstantial evidence is even bigger than the forensic.

[Rob_]

Circumstantial evidence (inference/chain of reasoning from facts) Its been alleged there is too much or a 'mountain' of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Its become apparent to me that those making such a claim do not understand what constitutes circumstantial evidence or how to construct a circumstantial case.

Here I will use another 1985 murder case that also has an alternative suspect as an example.

Why is Gerhartsreiter guilty of the 1985 murder of John Sohus? I give you just three pieces of circumstantial evidence. )

No1 - No pipes or plumbing where the body was found.

Dana Farrar, who knew Gerhartsreiter as Chichester, recalls noticing new turf and disturbed earth in the backyard of the Sohus family home on Lorian Road. She said Gerhartsreiter attributed it to a plumbing problem.

The remains were in the same area where Ms. Farrar had noticed disturbed earth in 1985. There were no pipes or plumbing in this area of the property.

No2 - A chainsaw and the victim being cut into pieces.

A few months before the Sohuses disappearance, defendant borrowed a chainsaw from a church friend, and asked another acquaintance from church where he could dispose of drums of chemicals. Defendant returned the chainsaw to his friend about a month after police took Mrs. Sohus’s sister’s missing person report.

Although the prosecution did not try to prove defendant actually used the chainsaw to dismember Mr.Sohus’s body, the jury could have reasonably inferred that from the evidence that the lower half of the body was discovered inside a fiberglass drum.

There was no evidence at trial that the chainsaw was used to dismember Mr. Sohus. Nevertheless, the prosecutor represented, and the trial court agreed, that the chainsaw evidence was relevant “to show that at the time these actions were all occurring in 1985, the defendant’s mental state was such that he was trying to figure out how to dispose of things such as bodies by asking about drums of chemicals, by borrowing chain saws, which he normally wouldn’t use in his normal habits and customs.” In fact, witnesses testified they never saw defendant operating power tools or doing any sort of physical labor, not even gardening.

No3 - The type of bags used to place the body parts in.

Following high school, defendant attended the University of Wisconsin.

Forensic scientist Lynne Herold, with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, determined that the fiberglass drum was buried three feet from the surface of the ground. The Site A bags included a “University Book Store at Milwaukee . . . Wisconsin” bag, which was the type of bag used at the bookstore at the University of Wisconsin.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/16/gerhartsreitercomplaint.redact.pdf

Thanks David nice post, I just hope Adam reads it!

[Rob_]

The circumstantial evidence is even bigger than the forensic.

I am a bit backward Adam, perhaps you could list for me the direct evidence and separately the circumstantial evidence. Thanks.