P2 Q2
200 word response 1 reference/intext citation
Due 1/17/2025
Carol
The Role of Circumstantial Evidence in Investigations
Circumstantial evidence becomes very important in investigations where direct evidence does not exist. One of the relevant cases that demonstrates this is the 2004 case of Scott Peterson being convicted for the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson. In this case, there was no direct evidence, such as eyewitnesses to the crime or any form of confession, to directly link Scott to the commission of the crime. However, a convincing story was built from circumstantial evidence, which included his contradictory statements to the police, buying a boat near the time Laci went missing, and GPS data that showed his presence in the general area where Laci’s body would later be found (Murray, 2011).
The forensic examination indicated that the concrete anchors produced by Scott were compatible with weights that could have been utilized to submerge Laci’s body despite the absence of the anchors at the crime scene. This meticulous collection and evaluation of circumstantial evidence empowered the prosecution to construct a compelling case for Scott’s culpability, culminating in his conviction.
Circumstantial evidence can, at times, prove more reliable than direct evidence, including, for example, witness testimony, often prone to the vagaries of memory or outside influence. Its means of evidence collection, if conducted in the manner taught in forensic courses, will ensure that the chain of investigation is properly maintained, thus minimizing errors and ensuring that even minute pieces of evidence contribute maximum value (Computer Forensics, 2008). This, therefore, indicates the application of forensic science in determining the truthfulness of cases in which direct evidence may not be easily accessible.
