View Single Post
Old 11-21-2014, 10:52 PM
brickbacon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Originally Posted by mr. jp View Post
1. True, but it's perhaps related to Jay's testimony.
2. I don't think this is strong evidence. If you go through all the notes of any random teenager back then (when more notes were taken on paper), you're going to find something that is in some way incriminating.
3. If anything, I think her diary points more towards him being innocent. I would expect way more ill will and talk about violent outbursts and such, if it was a diary featuring a murderer.
4. This is nothing. They were together for many months, of course his fingerprints are on some of the stuff.
5. Or he could've been a number of other places, right? Given the cell tower location technology.
6. In absence of Jay's testimony, it has no significance.
7. Of course you are going to say something that a cop trying to prosecute you will critique. Given that, this is mild.
8. Not good evidence that he is a murderer.
9. Was it a testimony, or was it something she said 15 years later, when her mind could have completely reshaped and colored the events?

Etc etc. I don't think any points on this list (except the first) is good evidence for guilt if he is fully innocent.
All you are doing is pointing out that damning circumstantial evidence can have an theoretical innocuous explanation. That is why it's circumstantial. One issue could be brushed off, but not 20+ items in addition to Jay's testimony.