The Great Divide

[Roch]

The family of Jill Dando and her close friend Nick Ross stated they were happy with the conviction of Barry George just before his appeal...even after his release Nick Ross never changed his mind.

The family of Rachel Manning said they were happy with the conviction of Barry White and the Police investigation when they were asked by the Rough Justice team  re-investigating the case. White was released on appeal and someone else was charged with Rachels murder this year.

My point is it's actually quite rare to find any family members of murder victims coming out and questioning a conviction.

This is a very good post.  I have suspected for some time that there could be similarities in this case.  I have portrayed this as a sort of 'Villain syndrome'.  Where a 'villain' exists for a heinous crime but then later serious doubts are prevalent, some of those who have accepted the 'villain' will not readily give up that 'villain' as being the perpetrator. 

This could be getting in to the realms of egap territory but I wonder if any statistical research has been carried out regarding acquittals  / victims' family maintaining a belief in the acquitted as still culpable?

[grahameb]

Maybe they are floating voters! lol

Or voting floaters?

[DV8]

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence which may support the prosecution case but is not direct evidence(such as an eye witness to the crime itself).  By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence, but I agree that a case built upon circumstantial evidence can nevertheless be a strong case.  A collection of circumstantial evidence taken together may provide a compelling case. 

DNA, fingerprint and blood analysis evidence is normally described as expert evidence.  Technically I suppose it can be regarded as circumstantial evidence.

Thank you NGB. I do not agree that: 
By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence,
It depends on each individual item of evidence. For exampe an eyewitness giving direct identification evidence to a crime could  quite easily be proved to be mistaken or lying by circumstantial evidence proving the identified person was nowhere near the crime when it happened.

Circumstantial evidence may indeed be far more powerful than direct evidence in some circumstances.  IMHO.

[ngb1066]

Thank you NGB. I do not agree that: 
By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence,
It depends on each individual item of evidence. For exampe an eyewitness giving direct identification evidence to a crime could  quite easily be proved to be mistaken or lying by circumstantial evidence proving the identified person was nowhere near the crime when it happened.

Circumstantial evidence may indeed be far more powerful than direct evidence in some circumstances.  IMHO.

I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further.  The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence.  In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence.  I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness.  In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case. 

[Hartley]

I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further.  The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence.  In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence.  I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness.  In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case.

Without speaking out of turn, I think DV8 is trying to address people who say that JB was convicted on circumstantial evidence, thinking that this indicates a weak/flimsy case against him.

[DV8]

I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further.  The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence.  In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence.  I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness.  In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case.

Thank's again NGB.
I won't continue making up an imaginary case! 
I was more trying to dispell the notion I have read on a few posts that circumstantial evidence is in someway inferior evidence or indeed necessarily dodgy!

This googled article expresses my point better than I could:

Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[3] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[4] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[5] Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[6]

 

[JackiePreece]

Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.

I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot

I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start

Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent

[ngb1066]

Without speaking out of turn, I think DV8 is trying to address people who say that JB was convicted on circumstantial evidence, thinking that this indicates a weak/flimsy case against him.

I understand the point he is making, and agree with most of what he says.  Many cases are based entirely upon circumstantial evidence and such evidence taken together can be very powerful. Obviously in relation to the Bamber case we disagree about the strength of the evidence, which was almost entirely circumstantial.

[mertol22]

Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.

I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot

I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start

Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent

Perhaps we are not looking in the right direction understandable with car lights off but switched on at night there is a signpost ahead with a clue ..mugford.

[DV8]

Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.

I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot

I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start

Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent

Actually Grahame said the other day that nobody should be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Ever. I was just address the fact that circumstantial doesn't necessarily mean weak.

Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent accept JB of course!

[ngb1066]

Thank's again NGB.
I won't continue making up an imaginary case! 
I was more trying to dispell the notion I have read on a few posts that circumstantial evidence is in someway inferior evidence or indeed necessarily dodgy!

This googled article expresses my point better than I could

[

Isn't google wonderful!  We don't need lawyers!

I agree that circumstantial evidence is not necessarily dodgy, and it can also be very strong evidence.  I do not think the evidence in the Bamber case was strong or reliable, for various reasons.

[Roch]

Actually Grahame said the other day that nobody should be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Ever. I was just address the fact that circumstantial doesn't necessarily mean weak.

Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent accept JB of course!

Or in the event of an incident between police and Sheila... the police.

[grahameb]

Unfortunately there is absolutely no direct evidence against Jeremy. Also the circumstantial evidence was very poor.

[mertol22]

Grahame this topic was started over lunchtime if i am correct, i have been out most of the time but could have made a post at any time, my thoughts were not to enter the thread at all so i waited to see how it continues, i became interested in one or two posts, take any topic on the forum and you will have divide galore daily its what the forum does, yet those who believe jb is guilty unless i have it wrong have yet to show any minute sense of morality in mugford in been just in recieving the pay off.

[DV8]

Or in the event of an incident between police and Sheila... the police.

You don't believe that do you? Jeremy Bamber doesn't!