Cases Where Spouses Got Away With Murder Despite Circumstantial Evidence

[infinityluxe]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Judy Groezinger

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by infinityluxe

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.

[Jon]

Do you mean circumstansive evidence?

[MediaHoarder]

Oh why must you remind me of that case.

[PingAnser3]

Originally Posted by Jon

Do you mean circumstansive evidence?

Attachment 282294

I thought it was circlestansive.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by PingAnser3

I thought it was circlestansive.

You're right. I stand corrected.

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

[drew790]

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

[drew790]

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

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.

[infinityluxe]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[schmave]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

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 has ruled that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as testimonial/direct evidence.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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 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."