Saturday, February 25, 2012

#McCann Case : Pat Brown Continues To Profile The McCann Case In Forensic Detail.

Evidence does not have to be in the form of forensic evidence  - DNA, fingerprints, hair, physical damage, etc. -  for a case to be built and for guilt to be proven in a court of law. Although it is very popular today for juries to rely more and more on forensics to come up with a guilty verdict, direct testimony and circumstantial evidence without any forensics at all can still be enough to prove someone's guilt. If thirty people give direct testimony that Joe Smith came into the room with a rifle and gunned down a bunch of people, this would be pretty good evidence even if Joe ran off with the gun and ditched it down a mineshaft.

Likewise, Jane Tanner's eyewitness testimony could be credible if there was not the question of her actually being on the street when and where she said she was (since two other eyewitness accounts state she was not there at all).

Add to this, issues over whether the lighting was good enough and the witness close enough for her to have really have seen a man carrying a child, a child in specific clothing, and likely, this testimony would be torn to shreds in court.

So let's move to the circumstantial evidence in this case.

The McCanns made an effort to build the case for an abductor from circumstantial evidence that did not include forensics of any sort.

The theory is that an abductor was hiding in the room while Gerry was checking on the children. This theory is based on the timing of the raised shutters and open window and the ever-changing position of the bedroom door. And, of course, Jane Tanner's sighting.

 But let's stay with the physical evidence for now.

If all these things can validate a stranger in the room at the very time Gerry is in the apartment, then Jane Tanner's story gets a boost because as soon as Gerry walked out the sliding doors, the abductor would grab Maddie from the bed and run out of the front door, crossing the street just in time for Jane to see him.

There is nothing wrong with developing a theory based on such things, if, in the end, these things are supportable in some way and make logical sense when the day is done. It still doesn't mean it is true, but at least it could be a good theory. And, if the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence really holds water, that theory may be good enough to accept as a factual rendition of what indeed did happen and eventually will stand up in a court of law as part of a criminal case.

Okay, so can we find evidence to support Jane's 9:15 sighting and the hypothesis that a kidnapper was in the McCann apartment and in the children's room at the same time Gerry was? more