Scott Peterson case dismissed foreman: "The evidence was garbage"

And he would never have convicted, per CNN....

Firefighter who was dismissed as foreman is dismissed, every time a juror is dismissed the jury is supposed to "restart" deliberations. I think the verdict could easily be overturned especially since the evidence was all circumstantial, but what do I know.

And if this is true it definitely should be overturned.

He could be as guilty as the day is long, we still have procedures to follow in the US, at least for now :)

like a juicy murder trial.

I would see so many "fry in hell" posts.

What WILL Allred, Grace and company do for nighttime jobs now :)

the government does NOT like their decision?
:wtf:?

the government doesn't like the way you vote.


It's all part and parcel.

Juror are not supposed to prejudge the evidence.

He was the jury foreman, in the jury room. From what I gather, he was judging the evidence in the jury room. And concluded the evidence was garbage. Which, from what I can gather, it was. Just heard a new piece of "evidence", a Norah Jones CD; because it's title was "Come Away With Me". :eyes:

Lovely lady.

I need that right now! How lucky for you to have met her.

It's possible that such a statement is not the result of a prejudgement. I guess it would depend on the timing and the context in which the statement was made.

My point was that if the foreman had said this BEFORE the evidence had been reviewed, it could be argued that he prejudged the evidence and was now prejudicing the other jurors with his statements.

Furthermore, ALL of the evidence was subject to being disallowed. If the evidence was truly "garbage" then Peterson's lawyers are negligent. "Garbage" evidence against their client is evidence they should have fought to keep out of the courtroom. Either they fought it badly, and the judge ruled against them (which suggests the evidence was NOT "Garbage") or they didn't fight it at all.

on the wall that they can, hoping enough of it sticks. "Adverserial" system my ass.

no prejudgement there. And from what I heard, the evidence did sound fishy.

Not saying he didn't do it, but doesn't sound like it was actually proved.

And since the anti-choice crowd wanted a conviction so bad, I'm especially not impressed with the verdict.

According to him, it was BEFORE all of the evidence had been submitted. In addition, he said it to a friend of his. That alone was enough to throw him off the jury.

You're not supposed to talk about the case while it's going on.

accused him. There is zero evidence that he in fact did say this.

I misunderstood that. Thanks for clearing that up

Also, keep in mind that this fellow was not dismissed from the jury. This thread is a case study in how people's emotions allow them to translate something they hear into a story that simply does not hold up. The person who was accused of saying the evidence was "garbage" was the fellow who ended up the jury foreman. He very simply was not dismissed.

This guy was NOT thrown off? I'll have to go re-read this

on CNN during the same general time. The fellow that the court had investigated for the information in the anonymous e-mail -- which accused him of telling friends he believed the evidence was garbage and would tie up the jury -- was never kicked off the jury. The court had an investigator who looked into it. There was no evidence that the charge he said these things was true. None. Zero. In fact, the court determined it was more likely that someone was trying to affect the outcome of the process.

When the PhD was kicked off the jury, the fellow who had been investigated was selected as jury foreman. Obviously, he did not believe the evidence was "garbage" as he was instrumental in returning the two guilty verdicts in short order.

That is what CNN reported after the verdict.

for that?

He was not dismissed. He became the jury foreman after the PhD was dismissed.

:)

and in fact most trial verdicts entirely rely on circumstantial evidence. If there were direct evidence, you wouldn't bother going to trial. You'd plead guilty.

Hell, I wasn't in the court or jury room, I cannot speak to his innocence or guilt. But removing jurors that just for being holdouts is certainly justification for appeal.

The appeals court has to respect a jury's finding of fact unless it is way beyond what a reasonable person would conclude -- only if it totally defies logic.

Do you have a link for an explanation why the juror was dismissed. I doubt it was because he was a holdout. It was either because he prejudged the evidence or based his decision on something he heard outside the trial.

If he said he was basing his judgment that the evidence was bunk on something he saw on entertainment tonight then they would have been right to dismiss him.

It will be interesting to see things unfold.

It was a talking point. I will request the thread be taken down since there is no link.

This is the flimsiest evidence I've ever heard of, especially for first degree murder. Did they ever even have a cause of death? Maybe I missed that part.

People have been convicted of crimes even though they could prove they were somewhere else at the time the crime occured

That's in a whole other category though, in my estimation. We do live in a time where people prefer to lock them up at any cost.

What are the chances that a guy with a fishing boat and a pregant wife and a girlfriend who bought a bunch of shit used to murder his wife would just happen to find that his wife was murdered and dumped somewhere where he had recently been on his boat?

And that's just what we know from TV. That jury looked into this guy's eyes every day and heard a ton of evidence and made their decision.

We got the Entertainment Tonight version which is ony most interesting when it's presented as a close call rather than a sure thing.

A fishing boat? Yep, a fishing trip and a dead body is absolutely guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A fishing trip and a dead body. Remember that little girl in San Diego? Do you think they would have found him guilty if all they had was an RV trip and her dead body? I doubt it, it was all the rest of the blood and hair evidence that convicted him. There wasn't anything else on Scott Peterson, one hair and that's it. Not much at all. I never could have called him guilty, not based on the evidence I heard. Which I admit may not have been everything they had, but if they had more, why wouldn't the media have reported it? Certainly Nancy Grace would have.

many live many miles from the Bay? Zero. How many of those bodies are pregant wives of cheating husbands who regularly go to the bay to fish.

Why wouldn't the Entertainment News not emphasize inculpatory evidence? Um, wild guess here: RATINGS???

It's better entertainment when people get worked up about innocence and guilt, as OJ proved and as a few tools here at DU are proving today.

There's this one, for starters. I suppose this guy is automatically guilty, because what are the odds he isn't.

"In San Francisco, 24-year-old Evelyn Hernandez was a week away from delivering a second son when she disappeared last May with her 5-year-old boy. Her torso—clad in maternity clothes—was found in the bay three months later. Her son remains missing. The married man she was dating has cooperated with police, and no arrests have been made."

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

Did Ms Hernandez's bf go shopping for murder tools the weekend before she disappeared?

Did Ms Hernandez's bf go fishing in the same area her body was found?

Did Ms Hernandez's bf lie to numerous friends and family members about his whereabouts at the time of the murder?

Did Ms Hernandez's bf go on the lam, and change his hair color?

None of this proves that either of them were guilty. I ask these questions to show that the two situations are not analogous

And the police say he's the logical suspect.

But he'll probably get off without evidence like the evidence in Peterson's case.

Because lord knows my husband has never had my wallet. I'll have to tell him to be sure and bring it right in the house if I ever leave it in the car, god knows he wouldn't want to be convicted of murder if he were found with my wallet and not me.

'He probably did it', is NOT evidence.

But, for the sake of accuracy, they weren't married. Her wallet was found at the married boyfriend's second job.

I'm not asking you to convict that guy, but I'm just saying, if you were a cop, please tell me that he would arrouse your suspicion and you'd look for more evidence?

They didn't have any more evidence on Scott Peterson than this guy. Suspicion IS NOT evidence.

him like the guy in the other case.

What makes you think that Peterson's case was light on the evidence? It was a pretty long trial for one that was light on evidence.

How long did that trial go? Months? Was that months of sitting around the courtroom twiddling thumbs?

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe prosecutors generally tell the exact truth and defense attorneys generally manipulate the truth?

What were they doing in court? I don't know, takes months to spin a tail of bullshit perhaps. I did not see anything that would qualify as evidence that this guy killed his wife. I just didn't. If something comes out from the jurors in the next few months that adds to what we know, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. Honest I will.

crimes against people as helpless as girlfriends, their wives, children and white middle class drunk drivers tend to get off. Petersen had everything on his side, including an entertainment media that wanted to make this a spectacle by creating the tension that he might be innocent, regardless of the evidence. If at any moment there were slam dunk evidence of his guilt, I would not rely on ET to tell me about it, thus screwing up their programming for the next couple months.

If the jury convicted him despite all these factors which usuallyresult in innocent verdicts for middle class men, then I'm not inclined to distrust the jury without a good argument why I shouldn't.

That some really passionate person on DU who only percieved this trial through the lens of the entertaiment media -- who didn't sit on that jury and doesn't know much about the criminal justice system -- feels the evidence was too flimsy is NOT a good argument.

I noticed. Do you think prosecutors generally present the exact facts and defense attorneys generally manipulate the truth?

The media tends to convict people in the press, no matter who they are. That they even admitted the evidence wasn't so great ought to make one even more suspicious of the quality of evidence, not less. And 3 jurors being dismissed in one case, extra weirdness.

I was a legal secretary for years, I do know a teensy bit about the criminal justice system. And prosecutors.

I have no reason to believe that in this case the prosecutors or defense attornies did anything unethical. Do you?

As for the media, I think they also try to exculpate the guilty every once in a while. It depends on the media and how much the like the accused, or how much money they think they can make off the accused.

I saw ET do some pretty fawning pieces on Koby, and it was interesting how every leak hurt the victim and helped the defense in that case.

It seems to me that you can't really say the media likes to convict people, unless it fits their fascistic version of society. And if they need a close call for drama's sake, they don't seem above delivering that up regardless of what the evidence might say. Furthermore, I think the media is starting to flirt with the idea that they're more powerful than government and the courts. They're probably gearing up for the day when we try to put our own Silvio Berluscone on trial and he needs a little help getting off.

By the way, what kind of law firm did you work for?

Your state of mind. Whether you're inclined to lean towards believing prosecutors are much more honest and ethical in presenting the evidence. A friend of mine was telling me about the Mike Tyson case, boy there's just no doubt at all he was guilty. Based on a book by the prosecutor. :eyes: I couldn't help but blurt out that I hoped to hell the prosecutor could write a book justifying a guilty verdict. He'd be a piss poor prosecutor if he couldn't.

Oh and Berluscone. Did you see the article today that is attempting to lump a bunch of journalist contempt cases together, including Plame and another WH case from 2001. I can see the smokescreen on that one already. I know the media plays games, but they do tend to convict unless it involves the powerful, like Kobe.

I worked in several small law offices, all kinds of law. It's been a very long time ago though.

The article doesn't have any information in it. AP asked about dead pregnant women floating up in the bay, I answered it. That's all.

Murder tools? Again, a fishing boat? Maybe we should try Scott Peterson on Ms Hernandez's murder too, since he was at the bay and she washed up there. I wonder how many people were at the bay at the same time either one of them was murdered. It's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And neither is somebody lying or wanting to get away from a murder charge, especially if they didn't commit the crime.

I think AP's point had more to do with the number of "coincidences" in the circumstances surrounding this murder than any particular one.

Maybe we should try Scott Peterson on Ms Hernandez's murder too, since he was at the bay and she washed up there.

If you choose one or a few facts about the Peterson case, I'm sure you could find plenty of similar cases where the person was completely innocent. However, you can't do that when you taken in ALL of the facts about this case.

I wonder how many people were at the bay at the same time either one of them was murdered.

It's how many were at the bay, and were married to the vic, who was pregnant with a child they didn't want, and who was having an affair, who lied about some of his actions, who fled and disguised himself, etc, etc, etc.

Find me a case that matches ALL of that. Then we'll talk reasonable doubt.

And neither is somebody lying or wanting to get away from a murder charge, especially if they didn't commit the crime.

Yep, keep addressing the facts, one at a time. Maybe I won't notice you never consider them all together.

or husbands don't disappear randomly.

Now is it? If it were, that guy would be locked up. Pregnant women have washed up in the bay, more bodies are undoubtedly at the bottom and have never washed up. I must have a higher standard of proof or something. A fishing trip and a dead body just isn't enough for me to convinct somebody of murder.

But we have two examples of almost identical circumstances. In Peterson's case, a jury just convicted him.

In the second case, please tell me if you were a cop you'd spend a little time trying find out more about this boyfriend.

But if I didn't find any, I wouldn't charge him. And I still say a fishing trip and a dead body aren't evidence of murder. That's just me.

But they charged Peterson with a lot of evidence and it was obviously enough to get a jury to convict him, and no matter what people here think they know from watching Entertainment Tonight, there's really no good argument for second guessing the jury.

Just had a hunch it was that guy. I guess that's what we now have for a justice system.

There's no reason to believe they convicted him on a hunch.

from where they lived. The probability of him happening to going fishing that far away on the day she disappeared and her body showing up in that spot is probably about 1 in a 1,000. The guy is guilty as sin! 1 in 1,000 is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cause of death undetermned.

And if the cause of death was undetermined because of extreme decomposition, I think the jury could be forgiven for not giving much weight to the argument that Peterson is innocent because there was no evidence of the cause of death.

Would you really want a rule that meant that the more successful you were at hiding the body, the less likely it would be that you get convicted?

They jury considers the evidence you sight along with ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE and makes a decision. And still, without any evidence about why we shouldn't trust this jury, I'm really unclear why there's so much passion over this case.

I know of a case in Montana, but they used DNA from bone fragments in a camper shell. I know of that case where they put the body in a chipper I think, again DNA. I think there's been a couple cases where somebody testified a body was dumped overboard.

AP, there wasn't any "all other evidence". I've given you the most convincing evidence. A fishing trip, a dead body, and a hair. It was actually in a pair of pliers, not a wrench. The rest of the evidence, that I know of, was more argument of motive than actual evidence surrounding the murder itself.

The judge dismissed 3 jurors, that's one reason it's a little extra weird. At least for me.

...was the girlfriend, the tapes, the purchases he made, the phone records, and a bunch of other stuff you, not being a member of the jury, did not see.

Yep, I'm aware.

except for one hair that was arguably the result of transference, everything else that was trotted out as "curcumstantial evidence" actually more truly fit the theory that Peterson is an asshole but being an asshole is not illegal.

I do know evidence theory as well as anyone you can find and I know what proves what. A solitary hair on the boat that had much material from the house they shared does not prove diddly.

They don't have to scientifically prove guilt. They prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

...weren't expecting any of her hair to be found on the boat?

Maybe a witness saw him hose down his boat after he came back the afternoon she disappeared.

It's so funny listening to people think they're experts on the evidence after getting all their evidence through the filter of Entertainment Tonight.

Are they gonna charge me next?

after you told your girflriend that you were about to have more time to spend with her? Did they find her body wrapped in that duct tape close to a place miles from your home where you happened to be shortly after your wife disappeared?

I not married so that takes away most of those questions and am not seeing anyone enough to call them a girlfriend.

However, for what it's worth, to get my vote for conviction, they have to bring physical evidence. Bloodstains, spatter, serology, witnesses, weapons, a crime scene, something, ANYTHING that ties him to his dead wife.

They luminoled every thing in the case and found squat.

All of this amounts to setting up a perfect case when combined with physical evidence. But there wasn't any. So it is a set-up without a climax.

That is just my way of seeing things.

Most of the physical evidence you mention can be explained away for innocent reasons, even if he was guilty.

Do you think finding some of her blood somewhere in the house, or on some of his possessions, would demonstrate guilt? She was his wife and they lived together. Maybe she cut herself and wiped it off.

And if you're talking about the sort of pattern of blood splatters and bloodstains that are consistent with a stabbing murder, well if they had that there wouldn't have been a trial. Just a plea bargain.

Almost EVERY court case that is tried is tried because the evidence is NOT slam dunk, you're guilty, lock em up and throw away the key. WHen the sort of physical evidence you seem to be asking for is present, there is not trial. Just a plea bargain.

can be viewed from many viewpoints.

My point is, without that to even squabble over, there is nothing left that overcomes presumption.

Circumstantial evidence IS sufficient to convict, and should be.

Imagine that I go into a room, and see a valuable object in the room, and then leave the room, with no one in it, and shut the only door to the room. Then you come along, open the door, go into the room, and shut the door behind you. After a minute or two, the door opens, you emerge from the room and shut the door behind you, and then leave the area. I go back into the room, and I see that the valuable object is no longer in the room. No one else was in the room during this time.

There's no physical evidence, but there's enough circumstantial evidence to possibly convict you.

do you know I went into the room?

and I'm willing to testify to that effect.

You could argue that I stole it. But if the jury believes me, you're gonna be wearing stripes

Then why the hell did you let me take your shit?

It's not a crime to not prevent you from stealing. Your point is irrelevant seeing as how we're talking about the need for physical evidence, and not why I would let you steal something.

Besides, I never said it my shit. And maybe, I trusted you. You sound like a trustworthy person.

SO can you, at the very least, respond to my point?

depending on much that is not expressed, it would be a swearing match, not a circumstantial case. At this point, it would be difficult to convict because of the nature of the incident.

Now, if the cops FOUND it on me or found someone to whom I sold it, or found it and it had my prints on it, it would be a slam dunk. Otherwise, it would be a difficult thing because of the nature of the evidence.

But courtroom evidence is not a locked-door mystery evidence.

over the circumstances surrounding the crime. The case would be based on circumstantial evidence, and no physical evidence and no eyewitness who saw the crime being committed.

Otherwise, it would be a difficult thing because of the nature of the evidence.

That's why cases that go to trial are almost ALWAYS difficult. If it was easy, there's no need for a trial. The attys from both sides would look at it, decide that there is/isn't a case, and either negotiate a plea bargain or drop the case.

But courtroom evidence is not a locked-door mystery evidence.

In trials, it usually is. More than 90% of the people charged ened up plea-bargaining. The rest are mainly circumstantial. I base this on an analysis of several hundred thousand criminal cases. I work for an organization that handles over 100,000 criminal defenses a year.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. This is merely one of about a million things that the government does that I disagree with.

I forgot.

I do not know how you are defining "circumstantial" in the context of evidence. Perhaps you should attempt to do that.

I want something physical at trial that ties the defendant to the crime.

Something.

they are going to have to do far better than that to ever get a guilty vote out of me. I believe in the presumption of innocence and that is a burden that must be met before someone is found guilty.

I'm surprised that the judge didn't toss this stinker out on pleadings.

didn't read the pattern jury instructions reminding people that they could only find guilt if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty?

Sometimes when all the evidence -- ALL of it -- is pointing in the same direction, and even though none of it is a home run, guilt is still quite obvious. In fact, that's what most trials are all about, becuase if there were evidence that, in and of itself, were a home run, there'd be no trial.

So you weren't convinced because there wasn't enough hair on the boat? Ok, so that's evidence didnt' meet your threshold. But you think it was exculpatory? What was all the exculpatory evidence in your mind?

the presumption of innocence.

The prosecuter has to go a long way to even be on an equal par with that burden. Without a cause of death, there is no way to prove how she was killed nor who did it. Without a time of death, there is no way to even say during what WEEK or FORTNIGHT she was killed. Maybe they can get it down to the month. That is debatable.

Peterson was and is a true asshole. He was insensitive, boorish, a lout, a philanderer, a liar, a cheat, and a truly despicable person. All of that can be proven with certainty.

But none of that makes him a murderer. Sorry, but i spent to much time in pursuit of "making" cases. I know how it is done and I have zero respect for it as a process and zero respect for the results.

In Petersen's case, he had all the resources to present a decent defense. Like OJ and the Koby Bryant case, it was probably the state that was underresourced and at a relative disadvantage in this case.

Most importantly, I didn't sit on that jury day after day, so I'm not about to second guess their judgement. They saw a lot of shit that I didn't see.

People tend to have unrealistic ideas about the justice system. One thing that comes to mind is simply this: if you are accused of a crime you did commit, you automatically have more cards to play than if you are accused of something you didn't do.

The legal case I am most familiar with, and had opportunity to assist defense counsel with, was the longest running, most litigated case in US history: the State of New Jersey v Rubin Carter and John Artis. It remains one of the strangest cases in legal history.

Cases such as the Peterson one are very simple in comparison. He played a role in her death. The police were not sure, considering that he seemed less than professional, if he had actually killed her, or paid a pro to kill her. The fact the bodies washed up where they did does not lessen the possibility of a pro being hired. The prosecutor felt strongly that Scott had killed her, and was more confident than some investigators that a jury could be convinced. Scott appears to be a sociopath, and society will be well served by his removal from the free world.

that I have read, anyway. I suspected he did it, of course, I have no way of proving that since I wasn't there and can't really make a judgement based on what someone on the news has said.

Should I ever find myself in the situation of being unjustly accused, I hope the state considers you one of my peers.

ESPECIALLY if you were justly accused. S

I don't expect to be justly accused of such things, but I get your point.

you are being so fucking personal about a disagreement but it is your right.

Fuck thyself. And quit with the punk-assed little insults. It is both boorish and silly. Argue on the merits and lay off the fucking sarcasm. Otherwise, you could end up looking like an asshole and no one wants that. Ask Scott Peterson.

inculpatory evidence, you probably wouldn't be able to convict 90% of the people who go to trial. Guilty people would be lucky to have you on their juries.

I agree that the criminal justice system is fucked up. But it tends not to be fucked up for middle class white guys who commit crimes against women and children.

And it is because of the limitations of the judicial system but most of all, it is because of the methods used by police to "solve" cases. I have done it myself although I never ran into circumstantial that made me believe someone guilty. I am old-fashioned. If the state is going to sentence someone to the ultimate penalty, then they damned well better have it beyond that reasonable doubt and that reasonable doubt comes after they overcome the presumption.

If the state is going to take life as punishment, they God damned well better have it airtight and this case doesn't do that for me. Not on a death penalty case.

As for the death penalty -- I'm against it. But I do have enough trust in the system to believe that when a jury in an American court room finds a middle class white man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime against a woman or a child, that way more often than not, the jury made a good call.

Now if you're talkinga bout an all-white jury convicting a poor black person of a crime without very much evidence and with a bad lawyer...well...I'm a little more cynical.

In any event, conviction for the crime and the sentence are two completely different parts of the trial. Your welcome to take all your complaints about the evidence over to the sentencing part of the trial.

But I'm not comfortable holding Peterson to a lower standard just because death is a potential punishment.

investigator for the state.

women and children were falsely convicted on evidence that you helped gather?

Did you follow your evidence to trial? Did you give expert evidence and sit around throughout the entire trial from opening statements to verdict and then through appeals?

and none that I know of were railroaded.

But I do know this ... on even the most difficult of circumstances, we were able to come up with something satisfying. Sometimes it was very difficult. The pressure to "clear" a matter is great. And what one does, if they are driven by the pressure, is pick out the most likely and find circumstances. Hell, that cop doesn't have anything other than suspicion and if you keep the pieces that fit your suspect and discard those that do not, you have a little pile of pebbles, as the lawyers always say.

But they are still just pebbles.

lawyer, all the prosecutor needs is pebbles. But if the defendant has a good lawyer, the jury will see the pebbles for what they are: something that isn't a rock.

The problem with Petersen wasn't that a lot of pebbles meant he was innocent. The problem was that his lawyer couldn't stop the jury from seeing that they were all pieces of the same big rock once.

maybe not.

For me circumstantial evidence had better be part of a framework, not the whole foundation. Perhaps if you were charged with a crime, inocent or guilty, I would be a juror that you would want.

My problems with it is that I seen sausage made and do not trust the process.

being the verdict of this jury. He has no prior criminal record. It is almost unheard of for a jury to return a death penalty verdict in these circumstances.

this is the sort of case where juries don't give the death penalty too often.

But who knows. Maybe they will. I'd love to see that stats for CA for this sort of thing.

Direct evidence is actually easier for a good lawyer to twist. An eye witness will often be able to be confused while on the witness stand. Give me two eye witnesses, and there will be different stories. Eye witness testimony - the most direct of direct - is not as good in many cases as indirect evidence.

For example, who did CNN report may have said that the evidence in this case was "garbage"? It was the fellow who ended up the foreman, not someone given the boot. People often interpret what they see and hear in a manner that just ain't so.

Seven Samurais notwithstanding, most cases go to trial because there is no direct evidence, and only in the rare extreme cases can a jury's finding of fact based on evidence that is circumstantial or direct be reversed on appeal.

This case is not going to be reversed based on the jurie's findings regarding the evidence presented. I think it's safe to say that.

in every state every year even with direct evidence. For the single most insightful analysis of the proper respect to give direct and circumstantial evidence, read Vince Bugliosi. Most good prosecutors prefer strong circumstantial evidence than "eye witness" evidence, which is the most direct of all direct evidence.

A lawyer of average skills can make most people look unsure of themselves on the witness stand.

An attorney on CNN had a beautiful example of circumstantial evidence: if you go to bed, and your lawn has only grass upon it, but when you wake up, there is a foot of snow, that's circumstantial evidence it snowed while you were sleeping.

look at all the dna that is releasing people now.

release him from prison. But if you're not comfortable convicting people on circumstantial evidence, then NOBDODY would be convicted at trial ever. Most trials are all about interpreting circumstantial evidence (and often they're about deciphering DIRECT evidence).

about the fellow who became the jury foreman. He was investigated a while back, for supposedly telling friends "the evidence is garbage." The e-mail to the judge that charged that was anonymous, hence the investigation found nothing to support it. This juror did become the foreman, and the jury convicted. Hence, the story about the foreman saying the "evidence was garbage" is just that -- trash.