Replies to post #300988 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[blackhawks]

The Senate Committee's words were very specific about 'direct evidence'. No then, no signed letter from Vlade to Donny stating 'you do this for me and I'll do the following for you.'

Remember the following when Mueller reports, and remember he will have presented either or both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Juries are routinely instructed to weigh circumstantial evidence and Mueller IS presenting to a grand jury.

Easy prediction: you will come to hate the words 'reasonable inference'.

www.shestokas.com/general-law/direct-vs-circumstantial-evidence-observation-vs-inference/

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is based on a witness’s personal knowledge or observation of a fact. If the witness personally saw the defendant stab the victim that is direct evidence; the stabbing is within the witness’s actual experience. Whether the judge or jury, whose duty is to listen to the evidence and determine the truth, believes the witness is a separate issue regarding credibility, but does not change the nature of the testimony as direct evidence.

Direct evidence has traditionally been described as eye witness testimony. In the modern age photographs, video and audio recordings are also direct evidence.[2] The recorded presentation of an event can establish directly that the event took place.

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is more complex. A witness did not see the stabbing above. The witness did see the defendant go into the house carrying a knife. The witness heard a scream inside the house and saw the defendant run out, not carrying the knife.

The victim is later found inside with a knife in her back. A reasonable inference is that the defendant stabbed the victim. Whether that fact is true will determine if the defendant is guilty.

Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence[3] of a fact which reasonably infers the existence or nonexistence of another fact. Circumstantial evidence is not direct observation of a fact that is in dispute. In the stabbing above, no one saw the victim stabbed, and the defendant said he did not do it, but the eye witness saw things that lead to the conclusion that the man running out of the house stabbed the victim. The witness’ testimony is circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt.


Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.

Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened.

In civil and criminal investigations, corroboration is often supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.

[SoxFan]

That's not true