I am on S9 of a Film Rise binge on Peacock. I usually watch at night before bed and tend to watch the entire series about 8 times a year through this method. I have noticed a recurring theme:

Spouses; usually husbands often get away with murder despite a ton of circumstantial evidence. Some of the cases it's so blatant that I can't believe police actually fumbled the case. I have seen people indicted with less evidence.

One case that boils my blood is Monika Rizzo. I feel like police failed this woman from the moment they showed up at her door step and saw her face beat all to hell and didn't ask to speak with the husband. The next time they showed up and found bones in the BBQ grill and backyard. Her husband claimed innocence and was so pathetic trying to put on a facade in his interview. The moment he slipped up and said he "loved" his wife and goes back and says "loves" did it for me.

He gets arrested for beating and kidnapping his girlfriend and then DNA comes back that the bones that have been through a wood chipper belong to Monika and still there isn't enough evidence?

Wow.

Judy Groezinger

I am on S9 of a Film Rise binge on Peacock. I usually watch at night before bed and tend to watch the entire series about 8 times a year through this method. I have noticed a recurring theme:

Spouses; usually husbands often get away with murder despite a ton of circumstantial evidence. Some of the cases it's so blatant that I can't believe police actually fumbled the case. I have seen people indicted with less evidence.

One case that boils my blood is Monika Rizzo. I feel like police failed this woman from the moment they showed up at her door step and saw her face beat all to hell and didn't ask to speak with the husband. The next time they showed up and found bones in the BBQ grill and backyard. Her husband claimed innocence and was so pathetic trying to put on a facade in his interview. The moment he slipped up and said he "loved" his wife and goes back and says "loves" did it for me.

He gets arrested for beating and kidnapping his girlfriend and then DNA comes back that the bones that have been through a wood chipper belong to Monika and still there isn't enough evidence?

Wow.

Murder is a very serious crime, you don't convict someone on "circumstantial" evidence for a crime that serious. You need a great deal more than that. Being arrested for another crime is not evidence someone committed murder in a court of law. In most of these cases there is enough evidence to make it apparent who did it, but that is a very different bar from proving it in court.

Do you mean circumstansive evidence?

282294

Oh why must you remind me of that case.

Do you mean circumstansive evidence?

282294


I thought it was circlestansive.

I thought it was circlestansive.

You're right. I stand corrected.

https://youtu.be/lS5L5WcobWo?t=911

I see we all came here to make the same circlestansive joke :lol:

I don't know why the bank would write down that I called on a Friday when I called on a Monday.

you don't convict someone on "circumstantial" evidence for a crime that serious

Uhh...yes you do. All the time. This show had mountains of cases largely circumstantial that ended in convictions. Paul Flores immediately comes to mind.

Uhh...yes you do. All the time. This show had mountains of cases largely circumstantial that ended in convictions. Paul Flores immediately comes to mind.


Exactly lots of people have been tried on circumstantial evidence. That black doctor who needed a heart transplant comes to mind.

With Monika Rizzo they had her bones all over the property chopped down with a wood chipper and they still didn't charge him! We have seen cases where people have been found guilty for less. Much less.

Uhh...yes you do. All the time. This show had mountains of cases largely circumstantial that ended in convictions. Paul Flores immediately comes to mind.

No, that is what has been done, not what represents the best practice of a judicial system.

As I have noted previously, convicting someone of murder when there is no body is a problematic practice from a due process standpoint, and one I would never personally be comfortable with as a juror.

The fact that people have been convicted on such evidence is not an argument for the practice. Many of those people were later exonerated, and sued the state for large sums.

I am surprised it took until the 13th post for the name "Mark Nichols" to make an appearance!
Circumstantial evidence pointed heavily in his direction, but his wife's body having not been found in the past 35 years has been enough to prevent charges from being filed. The near unanimous opinion here, and indeed elsewhere from what I've seen, is that he killed her, but there's enough lack of evidence and reasonable doubt for there not to have been a formal charge, let alone a trial or conviction.

The fact that people have been convicted on such evidence is not an argument for the practice. Many of those people were later exonerated, and sued the state for large sums.

Real life isn't CSI. More often than not, there is no smoking gun DNA evidence. And it's why courts and the justice system rely on building cases with circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11319074720007906691&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) has ruled that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as testimonial/direct evidence.

Real life isn't CSI. More often than not, there is no smoking gun DNA evidence. And it's why courts and the justice system rely on building cases with circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11319074720007906691&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) has ruled that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as testimonial/direct evidence.

I don't expect "smoking gun" DNA evidence by any stretch (in fact, I think DNA is trusted far more than it should be) but to at least prove that death even occurred is not a high bar to ask when trying the accused for a capital offense.

The supreme court has ruled many things in its time, some good, some bad, and has not infrequently overturned its own decisions. I honestly don't care if the court thinks circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence. Also, I would surmise that is a major simplification of what the court actually said, as this is a very nuanced issue that is going to have more case law than "yeah, its fine if its just circumstantial evidence."

Also, I would surmise that is a major simplification of what the court actually said, as this is a very nuanced issue that is going to have more case law than "yeah, its fine if its just circumstantial evidence."

The petitioners assail the refusal of the trial judge to instruct that where the Government's evidence is circumstantial it must be such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt. There is some support for this type of instruction in the lower court decisions but the better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect.

Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.

Yes, what that decision actually deals with is not even what evidence is sufficient but what instructions should be given to a jury. And the courts are notorious for not informing juries of their prerogatives.

If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.

If the prosecution cannot even prove someone is dead than I have plenty of reasonable doubt about the guilt of anyone accused of murdering them.

If the prosecution cannot even prove someone is dead than I have plenty of reasonable doubt about the guilt of anyone accused of murdering them.

You can reasonably infer that someone who disappeared into thin air after leaving a party and has never been seen again for 26 years that that person is dead. And you can reasonably infer that the person last seen alive with the intoxicated missing person who had a history of drugging and raping women was responsible for her death.

You can reasonably infer that someone who disappeared into thin air after leaving a party and has never been seen again for 26 years that that person is dead. And you can reasonably infer that the person last seen alive with the intoxicated missing person who had a history of drugging and raping women was responsible for her death.

Simply because someone has not been heard from for an extended length of time does not imply they are dead. A court can rule someone dead in absentia after a period, often 7 years, but that determination is subject to interpretation of the facts. Moreover, even if you assume someone is dead, you have no body, so you have no idea where, how, or when they died.
In this case I think it is reasonable to infer death, we would have expected to hear from her in 26 years. But it is entirely unreasonable to infer you know the time, place, or manner of death because no evidence exists to that effect.
Furthermore, a person's "history", especially when said history is not something they have been convicted of in a court of law under due process, should not carry enough weight to establish the time, place, and manner of death of a person that has never been located.

This hand waving approach to justice would make kangaroos shutter. Something his father was quoted as saying in the LA times seems pertinent.
“It wasn’t about facts,” said Flores, who did not get to speak with his son before he was taken away. “It was mostly about feelings, and I think that’s what happened with my son. They were carried away with feelings about their family and the girl missing.”
That basically sums it up. Emotions over facts, supposition over evidence, podcasts over forensics.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. But suffice to say if I was in the juror box on that case I would never have voted to convict. I hope he appeals and wins.

Simply because someone has not been heard from for an extended length of time does not imply they are dead. A court can rule someone dead in absentia after a period, often 7 years, but that determination is subject to interpretation of the facts. Moreover, even if you assume someone is dead, you have no body, so you have no idea where, how, or when they died.

Well what do you know? A court ruled in 2002 that it was reasonable to declare Kristin Smart dead in absentia!

But it is entirely unreasonable to infer you know the time, place, or manner of death because no evidence exists to that effect.

We have evidence of the time and place of her death. Flores had scratches and a black eye that he could not explain the morning after he was seen walking a clearly intoxicated Kristin Smart towards his dormitory. Cadaver dogs went to Flores's dorm room just a few days later.

Furthermore, a person's "history", especially when said history is not something they have been convicted of in a court of law under due process, should not carry enough weight to establish the time, place, and manner of death of a person that has never been located.

How do you know he wouldn't have been convicted of the raping of these women in a court of law?

That basically sums it up. Emotions over facts, supposition over evidence, podcasts over forensics.

I'd say the opposite is true with true crime in general. See: Adnan Syed, Steven Avery, West Memphis 3, etc. They usually are in favor of the guilty party claiming and feigning innocence.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. But suffice to say if I was in the juror box on that case I would never have voted to convict. I hope he appeals and wins.

I hope he never sees the light of day again.

Again, I don't care if the court ruled her dead in absentia. I specifically brought it up because it is an example of an official ruling of death without a body. When a court does that it makes no determination as to time, place, or manner of death. So it really makes no difference to me, all it amounts to is a recognition that if she were alive we would have heard from her by now.

Another person having injuries is not evidence of the time, place, or manner of her death. Scratches and a black eye can very easily be the result of hard college partying and a drunken blackout that follows. When I was in college I had friends that woke up in bushes and had no idea how they got there. That is not evidence that they were kidnapped and put there.

A cadaver dog hit might be evidence of a time and place of death, but it does not establish the manner of death or who died. This is a very important distinction because 1st degree murder requires a premeditated desire to kill someone. If someone dies of a drug overdose in a college dorm and a 19 year old student panics and disposes of the body that is not 1st degree murder. Again, manner of death is important here.

I have no idea if he would be convicted or not, that is my point. In our system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, for it to be evidence it should be an actual conviction. Otherwise, it is just an accusation. And the jury is not supposed to be a finder of fact for other crimes not being tried.

The important point here is that this is not about his guilt or innocence, but if the process was just and provided the accused with their rights.

Well this thread has gone only a little bit off the rails ... :lol:

Well this thread has gone only a little bit off the rails ... :lol:

Only circilstansively.

Well this thread has gone only a little bit off the rails ... :lol:

Yes, though at least it is still on the grade. Sometimes off the rails is off the side of the trestle. :lol:

I am on S9 of a Film Rise binge on Peacock. I usually watch at night before bed and tend to watch the entire series about 8 times a year through this method. I have noticed a recurring theme:

Spouses; usually husbands often get away with murder despite a ton of circumstantial evidence. Some of the cases it's so blatant that I can't believe police actually fumbled the case. I have seen people indicted with less evidence.

One case that boils my blood is Monika Rizzo. I feel like police failed this woman from the moment they showed up at her door step and saw her face beat all to hell and didn't ask to speak with the husband. The next time they showed up and found bones in the BBQ grill and backyard. Her husband claimed innocence and was so pathetic trying to put on a facade in his interview. The moment he slipped up and said he "loved" his wife and goes back and says "loves" did it for me.

He gets arrested for beating and kidnapping his girlfriend and then DNA comes back that the bones that have been through a wood chipper belong to Monika and still there isn't enough evidence?

Wow.

Unsolved Mysteries should do a segment on what could be the biggest Unsolved Mystery ever, how a broke ass dude like Leonard Rizzo, who literally had a police standoff with the police and charges for DV, doesn't get accused after his wife disappeared and they found bones of her in the backyard. Every time I see some case where people go to jail because they drove the same car and both wore a hat or something to that effect in the numerous "wrongfully accused" segments or news stories, I think about the case or when a millionaire guy with friends in high places still gets convicted, how they can bring that guy to trial.

Unsolved Mysteries should do a segment on what could be the biggest Unsolved Mystery ever, how a broke ass dude like Leonard Rizzo, who literally had a police standoff with the police and charges for DV, doesn't get accused after his wife disappeared and they found bones of her in the backyard. Every time I see some case where people go to jail because they drove the same car and both wore a hat or something to that effect in the numerous "wrongfully accused" segments or news stories, I think about the case or when a millionaire guy with friends in high places still gets convicted, how they can bring that guy to trial.

The case was bungled from the start. What seems like an open and shut case gets muddied when the cops announced that there could have been up to 4 other people's remains found in the backyard. The neighbor (who know is thought to be the anonymous tipster) calls the cops and tells them he sees a dog playing with a jawbone that was definitely Monika's because of the shape of the teeth...and it turns out to be a cow's jawbone. The neighbor also knew the precise location of where the remains were found, so much so that he called the police twice and gave them a more detailed description.

Real life isn't CSI. More often than not, there is no smoking gun DNA evidence. And it's why courts and the justice system rely on building cases with circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11319074720007906691&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) has ruled that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as testimonial/direct evidence.

Thanks for mentioning that. I was about to chime in that direct and circumstantial evidence are given the same weight by the court and it is up to the jury to decide if the evidence is reasonable.