Circumstantial evidence Puns

The claim Bobby had "NO" evidence against him is false. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If Steven had these same scratches on his back you can bet your bottom dollar that the Prosecution would use this evidence against Steven. Anyone who disagrees is purely lying.

https://preview.redd.it/ui4o1bj3rw581.png?width=564&format=png&auto=webp&s=7bf484e7a58e095c2cfb90c89cc418a0d3f65ec2

https://preview.redd.it/8d0ok5k3rw581.png?width=562&format=png&auto=webp&s=47b4b50161cc3b534c832d808ff0510b47039147

https://preview.redd.it/x61p62k3rw581.png?width=560&format=png&auto=webp&s=c920701e6e3e781df726d04c116472c2229469dc

https://preview.redd.it/g8wwr6k3rw581.png?width=563&format=png&auto=webp&s=47d7ba6b4b2aeb84ddfa8c189144dfa173b4784f

https://preview.redd.it/tgiym2k3rw581.png?width=562&format=png&auto=webp&s=652549d490758c27c3f5ca1594421a29dd243361

https://preview.redd.it/i6pgz5k3rw581.png?width=562&format=png&auto=webp&s=125d19bbc9a82dd6312817995d157be51cb14eae

https://preview.redd.it/i6b3t5k3rw581.png?width=561&format=png&auto=webp&s=f11cbaa9beb44a19ed9e8d8c3d735ba25eb086ac

https://preview.redd.it/3g0e3bk3rw581.png?width=562&format=png&auto=webp&s=639c88e6519f350d15a29d25624d8c34fc762147

How did they find the titanium screw in the finale? Just did a rewatch and the last we see of it is Dexter using it to get free from cable ties in Unfair Game. He doesn’t put it back in his pocket? So safe assumption would be that it was left in the snow. Also, Elric dies so it’s not like he picks it up and gives it back to Kurt?

I don’t know. I thought maybe binging it would make the finale feel less rushed, but it seems to just provide so many more convenient plot points.

I think it feels like that because so many inconsistencies were ignored because we expected a fire finale. Whether Dexter was going to die or not. We all thought they were going to pull it out of the bag and amaze us with this conclusive ending.

So Barry left his house at 3:30am with the bike on foot/bike was stupid enough to bring his cell phone, planted the bike at the bike location, walked/ran back to the house, got into his car at 4am and then made a wrong turn in the opposite of direction of Broomfield to where the bike helmet was found, which necessitated him making a U turn, then lied about the left turn, and made a BS elk story that was proven false. Damning evidence, damning. Proves he planted the bike and helmet.

Was doing legal research in a civil matter and my search terms turned up a Massachusetts murder case from 1985, Commonwealth v Nadworney. 486 N.E.2d 675 is the cite, for anyone interested in reading it

The case has some interesting things to say on questions such as the value of circumstantial evidence, inferences from evidence, motive, guilty mind, and so on. While far from a perfect match for Adnan’s case, it shows that the way the law actually works is almost 180 degrees from the assumptions made by many Innocenters, based on their comments on this sub. It struck me that this case, and some of the cases it cites (including the seminal People v. Scott case, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, from my own state of California) could be helpful in clarifying what "evidence" means in a murder case.

Users who say there is "no evidence" that Adnan killed Hae most likely mean there was no direct evidence, other than Jay, whom they discount entirely; or that there’s no physical or “CSI” evidence; or that the evidence doesn’t “prove” Adnan killed Hae (from what I've seen on this sub, "no evidence" usually equates to "the evidence doesn't prove it.")

As to circumstantial evidence, however, the Nadworny case states the almost universal rule that “it is well settled that [circumstantial] evidence is competent to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To conclude otherwise would mean that a criminal could commit a secret murder, destroy the body of the victim... [and] escape punishment despite convincing circumstantial evidence against him.” This question arose in that case because the M/E was unable to determine from physical evidence that the victim died as a result of violence.

Adnan's supporters frequently say flat-out, or at least imply, that circumstantial evidence isn’t enough. Pseudolawyer once absurdly opined that “another name for a strong circumstantial case is a weak case.” Nadworney is an example of a case, and they are legion, which explains why this isn’t true. Some murderers are able to commit their crimes without leaving any direct or physical evidence, and if they are to be held accountable at all it must be by circumstantial evidence or nothing. This is one of the areas where Adnan’s supporters must deny or defy the way criminal justice actually works in order to justify their position.

The use of a series of probable inferences to lead to the conclusion that criminal agency was present in a given case is also discussed in Nadworney. As the Na

At the start of the episode, I was pretty sympathetic to Mohamedou's story. Our government stole 14 years from this guy, without ever charging him with anything, and after the way that first guard got all cheeky and was so insensitive about the suffering he'd caused Mohamedou, that fucking set me off. I actually paused the episode to tell my SO about it; my SO was equally appalled. However, when Ira and the other guy start running through that laundry list of Mohamedou's suspicious behavior (in the most ridiculously perfunctory way), they lost me. This was no longer a sympathetic figure to me. Just to go over some of the list:

1. Mohamedou was in al Qaida around the time they committed their first WTC bombing in '93.
2. There's one degree of separation between him and a bunch of people who'd committed terrorist acts, such as the Tunisian synagogue attack.
3. There were 2 degrees of separation between him and bin Laden, himself (that we know of).
4. He had members of al Qaida in his apartment after the organization had already committed the USS Cole bombing.
5. More importantly: He had members of al Qaida in his apartment during the period that al Qaida was planning the 9/11 attacks, including one of the men who was involved in said planning and, possibly, two of the hijackers.

I understand that, either due to the torture or lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the US Government couldn't bring a case against him, but I just can't get past the fact that Mohamedou was once part of a terrorist organization, while they were committing acts of terrorism, and he continued associating with terrorists before, during, and after they had committed acts of terrorism.

We shouldn't have tortured him, but sweet jesus was this guy covered in red flags in 2001. There are a lot of obviously innocent/wrong-place-wrong-time prisoners in GITMO (not that there should be anybody at GITMO, in the first place), but Mohamedou doesn't seem to be one of them.

We talk a lot about UFOs and UAPs, but I don’t think that’s what we really care about. We care about the possibility that these anomalous sightings imply non-human technology.

This subreddit is about finding scientific evidence, which is hugely important, but I’m curious about other kinds of evidence, too— I don’t think we need scientific evidence to take the possibility of non-human, intelligent activity on Earth seriously.

There seems to be a plethora of multiple witness accounts, sometimes mixed with other sensors, and many, many people in positions of authority who break ranks to tell the public about these things.

Certainly there are plenty of hoaxes and misperceptions out there, but it’s not clear to me that they undermine the strongest cases.

So, in your opinion, is there enough circumstantial evidence out there that the general public should take seriously the possibility of aircraft built by non-human intelligence? Or should anything short of scientific evidence be disregarded?

My conclusion is that, yes, Brian Laundrie (BL) was spotted in Baker, FL. The trail cam footage FOUND HERE is not high quality and there is room to debate how close of a match the physical characteristics of the person in the footage matches BL. However, this report is a review of all the circumstantial evidence outside of a discussion around a positive ID of the person in the photo. We will review five separate pieces of circumstantial evidence that overwhelmingly support this footage being a positive ID of BL.

Assumption #1 Fleeing the Area

Whether BL’s intent is to leave the state, the country, or just attempting to get as “far away as possible”, the storyline to date suggests that Brian is motivated to attempt to flee from authorities. The location of where to is irrelevant to this assumption. We can assume that if he is knowledgeable of Gabby’s death, whether an accident or intentional, he is panicked to the point of escaping the area.

Assumption #2 BL Parents Level of Cooperation

BL’s parents actions have followed one of two paths since his return to North Port on Sept 1st. Either they are not knowledgeable of any wrongdoings and have been duped by BL or they are aware and have decided to act biasedly to protect BL’s interests. In the latter case, we can assume that BL’s parents may withhold key information from authorities. However, we do not have reason to believe they would outright lie themselves directly to authorities to risk incriminating themselves. Having hired a lawyer, it is reasonable to assume that they received similar direction to not lie directly to authorities. Therefore, what little statements they have provided, we can believe to be true albeit not with good intentions. If the first case is true, where they have no knowledge of wrongdoing, then again we have no reason to believe they would lie directly to authorities.

Collaborating Circumstances
Based on the two assumptions above being reasonable, we can draw circumstantial conclusions to further support or deny if this footage is a positive ID of BL.

Circumstance #1 – Time & Distance

BL’s Parents state to authorities that they haven’t seen Brian since Tuesday Sept 14th. This is six full days before the 6:17am trail cam footage on Sept 20th. North Port is approximately 480 road miles from Baker Florida. Working under Assumption1 (he is

Okay, we know that the charges against Freeman are bogus, but is that the case from Starfleet's perspective?

In wej Duj, Freeman hails the Che'ta'.

>Freeman: "Klingon ship, this is the Federation Starship Cerritos. We've dealt with Pakleds before. Are you in need of aid?"

We know what Freeman meant with this exchange, but from an outsider's perspective, like Ma'ah, 'dealt' could mean 'trade' as much as it could 'encounter' in a military fashion. Add to this, the Klingon Captain Dorg has been engaging in treason. Ma'ah has no reason to believe that Dorg would not turn on an ally if it would culminate in destabilizing the quadrant and bring glory to the Empire. Thus the fact that the Che'ta' opened fire on the Cerritos is not itself evidence against collusion.

That said, the exchange is ambiguous, and not itself evidence of wrong doing on Freeman's part alone. Hence she was allowed to continue with the events depicted in First First Contact.

Now, turning our attention to 'Spy Humongous'.

Freeman, in her attempt to negotiate a ceasefire, ended up consolidating the Pakled leadership in a single room, which culminated in a coup d'état. Coincidence or deliberate?

Freeman also granted temporary asylum to the spy Rumdar until the coup had occurred. Thus, protecting the Pakled traitor. This might, on its own not be suspicious, but when asked where Rumdar was, Freeman explained that Rumdar was in the bathroom. The fact that Rumdar ejected himself into space in his quest to use 'the biggest bathroom' suggests, from Starfleet's perspective, that Freeman and Rumdar were in cahoots. This makes plausible deniability a lost argument on Freeman's end.

As for how this culminated in the destruction of Pakled Planet, the Titan's intel reported that the Pakleds were raiding planets to acquire Varuvian. This means that the plot to blow up Earth was not a simple matter of Dorg giving them the weapon. The Pakleds have the means (however misguided or rudimentary) to develop their own Varuvian bombs.

I submit that Starfleet's argument is that Freeman was a pivotal and deliberate player in the overthrowing of the Pakled government to a party that favored the Varuvian bomb plot to destabilize the quadrant. It is due to her encounters with the Pakleds that she was primed for a promotion so it is reasonable to suspect that she may resort to 'fanning the flames' in an attempt to advance her own career.

As for the destruction of Pakled Planet, Freeman was nowhere near there

I believe Anthony Oneal has definitely been fired as a Ramsey Personality and possibly from the entire organization.

My evidence;

• If you watch his July 1st show on "The Table" he announces he is taking 2 weeks off from all social media and going on vacation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHT47I_Aovs&t=119s This seems very odd and suspicious to me and screams he was actually suspended for 2 weeks.

• He has not appeared on the official Dave Ramsey radio show since right around that same time frame (Late June early July).

• On the July 23rd show of "The Table" and all previous episodes since the Dave Ramsey rebranding into the "Ramsey Show" the intro clip that appears the first 5 seconds of the video is the Dave Ramsey chime and the Dave Ramsey Graphic. Here is an example of the the Dave Ramsey Brand intro chime in the first few seconds.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqNQoT3Cz2I&t=19s

• Starting on July 26th and, all future shows that are posted after this date, the Dave Ramsey show graphic and chime has disappeared and all you see is the AO logo at the start of the show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diqaqz6RuCk

• Furthermore, George Kamel becomes a Ramsey personality and hosts a show with Dave right around this date...And isn't it fucking ironic that on the very last day (7/23) where you see the show with the Dave Ramsey sound chime and branding also happens to be one of the first time you see the new guy George Kamal introduced as a new personality. I imagine the conversation went something like; Ok Anthony, you can still have your show and use the studio to record your show, but we are going to remove the Ramsey branding, and you are going to have to take one last episode as a branded personality to introduce the new personality who will be taking your place. Dave really likes you as a person but its just not working out so he is letting you transition the show and make it your own.

• There were moments in June when Anthony and Dave both hosted the show together I could sense visible frustration in Dave towards Anthony and once when Anythony joked with him and called him old or unhip or something of that nature and Dave made a comment half joking like " Lets see if you are still working here" -Yikes.

Basically I am 99% sure Anthony Oneal has been fir

Was listening to a podcast, and they mentioned that a person was aquited from her parents ax murder because all of the evidencr was circumstantial, what makes evidence circumstantial?

Though I don’t know anyone wholes DF‘ed over sleeping in the same apartment/room/bed, I‘ve never understood it… just because you spend the night in the same house, that doesn’t mean that you have sex usually.

And even if you sleep in the same room or bed - if Jehovah really was the judge of our actions and saw everything, why do the elders have to enforce their strange rules regarding circumstantial evidence?

Why is the whole „men interacting with women“ (and vice versa) such a huge issue in the org? Nobody talks as much about sin and sex as the org it seems…

It just seems strange to me that something so innocent as sleeping in the same room can get you DF‘ed.

An innocenter gets off early from work on his wife’s birthday. He doesn’t tell her because he wants it to be a surprise.

When he gets home there is a familiar looking car parked outside. Doesn’t her coworker Bob Johnson have that make and model? Same color too. Oh, and the license plate has some of the same letters and numbers at the beginning. It’s not a very common car, not like an Accord or Camry. And it is parked right in front of our house. Still there’s gotta be tens of thousands of those cars on the roads in the US. And people don’t always park in front of the house they go into. Sometimes people abandon cars in random locations. By itself this car tells me nothing about whether Bob Johnson is over for a visit.

He enters the house and calls out loudly “honey, surprise, I’m home early! I’m taking you out to dinner and a show.” There’s no answer so he calls out again. Still no answer, but he does hear some muffled sounds of voices coming from upstairs. There’s no tv upstairs and his wife doesn’t have one of those fancy “devices” you can watch tv on. Could be the neighbors though. Sometimes these old houses make creaking noises. By itself, he thinks, my wife’s failure to answer when I called out and the sound of muffled voices are not evidence of anything.

As he begins to head upstairs, he sees a trail of clothes scattered on the stairs. Hmmm. Women’s AND men’s clothes. Even undergarments. But sometimes when people do laundry they drop articles of clothing as they are carrying the laundry to and from the laundry room. Why that’s happened to him many times!  True he’s never randomly dropped a complete set of his and his wife’s clothes while carrying laundry but it could happen. In all the hundreds of millions of times that people have carried laundry to and from laundry rooms, it must have happened at least a few times. By itself, the trail of men’s and women’s clothes leading up the stairs to the master bedroom doesn’t prove anything.

Hmm, the door to the master bedroom is locked. That is unusual. But not unprecedented. When the kids were little they sometimes had to lock the door for privacy. And you know sometimes people see things in tv that frighten them. His wife’s never been the nervous Nelly type, but people change. By itself, the door being locked isn’t suspicious.

His wife unlocks the door and says “you’re home early!” She has a bathrobe pulled tightly around her, but he can see a pink shoulder strap that is similar to one of her mor

Hi all. This is my third consecutive post on the underwear, hopefully it's a good one. Today I'm putting facts and circumstantial evidences or clues we can easily glean from, in relations to the underwear, all in one place, so it's easier to examine all of them in tandem with one other for discussion if one is to believe Burke Did It (whether accidentally or not).

So, all those combined:

1. The fact that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and then murdered
2. The near guarantee that she was redressed, because she normally wore a size 4-6 and the underwear was a size 12
3. Clues suggesting the underwear were taken straight out of the factory packaged box, including the fact that nobody in the household normally wore size 12 underwear (the replacement ones were the only ones of their size found), and there were unknown DNA theorized to be from factory workers
4. Presence of uniform urine stains along the anterior regions of both the underwear and longjohns indicating she voided her bladder (a lot) facedown upon death
5. The fact that JonBenet was wiped down, indicative by her inner thighs and crotch glowing under the UV light (investigators actually assumed this was from semen at first), her skin being clear of blood where the bloodstains were in the underwear, and there being no blood in the longjohns
6. The presence of the UV glow overall -- especially on her inner thighs -- and there being little actual staining of the blood in the underwear suggest there was much more blood originally; in combination with the lack of blood mixed with urine when she died and no blood in the longjohns, all those indicate that it would've been unlikely she was garroted without being wiped down first
7. The presence of John's shirt fibers situated specifically in the crotch area of the underwear (since those fibers are controversial to an unfair degree, IMO, I wrote a comment regarding their authenticity for anybody curious)
8. The absence of Patsy's fibers in the underwear, despite her fibers being left behind in other areas of interest at the crime scene
9. The fact that upon being questioned separately about John's shirt fibers, John went berserk over his relationship with his daughter "being disgraced" and Patsy developed Ramnesia
10. The fact that the evidence of the sexual assault was removed, but not the garrote
11. The fact that the Ramseys refused to acknowledge that JonBenet was

There is a common misconception that there was ‘No Evidence’ to convict Scott Peterson of 1st degree murder of his wife Laci Peterson and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son, Conner. This is due to the biased A&E Mockumentary ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ which was created by Janey Peterson’s friend, Shareen Anderson. It could have been a great documentary had they not omitted evidence, lied, twisted facts and tried to dupe their audience into thinking:

1 - Scott didn’t get a fair trial 2 - There was no evidence 3 - Scott was convicted by the media 4 - Scott’s in prison for having an affair 5 - The burglars killed Laci Peterson

These are the main talking points and phrases of the Peterson family PR campaign to sway public opinion. If you’ve ever heard these phrases parroted online, in YouTube videos, podcasts or articles, I guarantee you it can be traced back to this million dollar, decade long campaign. The wealthy Peterson’s have paid a lot of money for people to repeat their lies that have been debunked by multiple judges, multiple times.

Their duplicitous documentary has spread like a virus, with podcasters, bloggers, vloggers and other so-called ‘journalists’ using it as a ‘source’.

This list was written to combat #3 of the Peterson Family Lies.

I am the original author and my source is the 2015 respondents brief that is publicly available on the Stanislaus county website. It is the 519 page document.

Enjoy!

“Scott Peterson and the Big, Bad Media”

-The Media didn’t drive 180 miles and 3 Hours roundtrip to ‘fish’ for less than an Hour, passing dozens of bodies of water along the way so they could ‘get the boat out on the water’. Scott Peterson did.

• The Media didn’t research tides, currents and the Berkeley Marina 2 weeks before the ‘last minute decision’ fishing trip. Scott Peterson did.

• The Media didn’t happen to have a pre-purchased 2 day fishing license on hand for a ‘last minute decision’ to go fishing on Christmas Eve, nor did they leave an unopened package of lures they bought with the license in the front seat of the truck while they ‘fished’. Scott Peterson did.

• The Media didn’t tell Amber Frey they Lost their wife and this would be the first Christmas without her 2 weeks before their psychic prediction came true. They also didn’t run out and buy a boat with $1400 cash that same day and ‘forget’ to register it. Scott Peterson did.

• The Media didn’t double their next months cable Bill by adding and exchanging po