I keep seeing posts about how that is all they had with the Casey Anthony case. Can someone please explain why it is weak evidence?
Keep in mind that murder weapons, DNA, and fingerprints are all circumstantial.
Answer by beckie66 at 9:43 PM on Jul. 5, 2011
Answer by MrsMWF at 9:44 PM on Jul. 5, 2011
Answer by Sisteract at 12:20 AM on Jul. 6, 2011
It's not circumstantial evidence that is weak. It's WHAT evidence they have and how it connects the dots. A video of her buying supplies to make chloroform, actual chloroform found at the house, a text or anything from her wanting to obtain chloroform all would have more than likely convicted her, all of which is circumstantial. The pieces of evidence they did not have were the main ones they should have had. They had nothing linking her to the crime scene. Had there been footprints that matched to her shoes, while circumstantial, would have probably gotten her convicted. They didn't have what they needed.
Answer by Trinity001 at 12:23 AM on Jul. 6, 2011
Answer by prettynpink343 at 11:52 AM on Jul. 6, 2011