We went over this in the original thread. You simply dismiss any evidence that doesn’t prove your case. This is, as I pointed out, incorrect.
The fiber evidence is not conclusive proof of guilt. It does tend to establish guilt, and, taken in connection with other non-conclusive but indicative evidence, established the guilt of the three beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. That verdict has been upheld as reasonable on appeal. Your method of dealing with these undoubted facts is to cast aspersions on everyone involved and repeat yourself over and over, give greater weight to TV movies than sworn testimony, etc., etc. As is often said, “when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; when the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table.” No doubt your fist is getting sore, but you persist.
Circumstantial evidence is inconclusive but certainly not worthless. Sometimes you find a trout in the milk. If I take out a million dollar life insurance policy on my wife, and tomorrow she is dead, that is not conclusive of my guilt. If we are known to be having marital problems, that is also not conclusive of my guilt. If I am under pressure from my mistress to leave my wife, but cannot because I cannot afford to be divorced, that is also not conclusive. If my wife died of poisoning, and I have rat poison in the garage, that is not conclusive.
Taken separately, none of these are conclusive proof that I murdered my wife, if you dismiss each one, because no one piece alone is enough to convict me. However, if you take all of them together, and add to it the testimony of a couple of my friends that I mentioned that I had murdered my wife, then most people would agree that there was a pretty good prima facie case for my guilt. No doubt my defense lawyer, if he were any good, would find some mysterious stranger who showed up in the neighborhood who might have done the deed. And if I were convicted, no doubt if you looked hard enough, you might find somebody who was dead who had committed a murder by forcing rat poison down the throat of a stranger. And if you then allowed yourself to argue, “Well, no one piece of evidence was strong enough to establish guilt all by itself”, then (providing I had been sentenced to death) no doubt there might be a groundswell of support for me as an innocent, railroaded victim.
If the DNA comes back, that will also not be conclusive. If the blood on the necklace is shown to be from the victim, no doubt the defense will argue contamination or deliberate planting by the police. If it is shown to be from someone else, or if it cannot be determined who it came from, then no doubt the defense will argue what I suspect they are arguing now - trying to slip from “this evidence does not show guilt” to “this evidence shows innocence” and hope no one notices.
But I will notice.
As mentioned earlier, one of the defendants has mentioned drinking blood, so it is possible that the DNA tests will come back as being from someone other than the victim. But that does nothing to establish reasonable doubt. I intend to apply a consistent standard. Just so you know.
Regards,
Shodan