Contrary to popular believe, circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence. In isolation, it might not be enough to convict, but when used in conjunction with other evidence, it can create a damning case.
1. The camera contained pictures of owners desk.
2. That model camera was purchased on amazon by the owner.
3. The serial number of the camera indicates that it was sold on amazon and produced around the time of purchase by the owner.
4. The camera was found in a place the person had reasonable, unrestricted access to.
5. owner was found in possession of pictures that look to have been taken by the device, in the position where the device was originally discovered.
* I'm not asserting these facts are true, just stating them for the sake of example.
In isolation, each of these pieces of evidence don't prove much, but in totality, it is highly unlikely that all of those things would happen to an innocent person. Jury's don't need to be 100% certain to convict, they need a preponderance of evidence.
I can see why a prosecutor wouldn't pursue this case against a rich person though. The police are unlikely to do a good job at collecting evidence, a good lawyer will get enough of it thrown out, victims probably won't want to testify anyway, and being a business owner, this person might have clout with local politicians who will make trouble.
Contrary to popular believe, circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence. In isolation, it might not be enough to convict, but when used in conjunction with other evidence, it can create a damning case.
1. The camera contained pictures of owners desk.
2. That model camera was purchased on amazon by the owner.
3. The serial number of the camera indicates that it was sold on amazon and produced around the time of purchase by the owner.
4. The camera was found in a place the person had reasonable, unrestricted access to.
5. owner was found in possession of pictures that look to have been taken by the device, in the position where the device was originally discovered.
* I'm not asserting these facts are true, just stating them for the sake of example.
In isolation, each of these pieces of evidence don't prove much, but in totality, it is highly unlikely that all of those things would happen to an innocent person. Jury's don't need to be 100% certain to convict, they need a preponderance of evidence.
I can see why a prosecutor wouldn't pursue this case against a rich person though. The police are unlikely to do a good job at collecting evidence, a good lawyer will get enough of it thrown out, victims probably won't want to testify anyway, and being a business owner, this person might have clout with local politicians who will make trouble.