Books, movies, and television consistently attempt to downplay circumstantial evidence as if it is not enough to convict a criminal of a crime. This is false, and it is just one of hundreds of lies perpetuated in books, movies, and television that the average person is utterly ignorant to and gets brainwashed by because of frequent repetition. If you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, the average person will begin to believe it because of their sheer ignorance. That is why public school systems exist, so that you can dictate what they learn and indoctrinate them all at once by brainwashing them with false information. Like I frequently state, education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your teachers think and believe. Unless it is something like mathematics, it rarely ever teaches you how to think objectively let alone how to think for yourself. The world does not like people who think for themselves, whether in the work force or elsewhere. Present day society is demonstrating that more and more.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Eye witnesses are direct evidence. Everything else is circumstantial evidence. A fingerprint at a crime scene is merely circumstantial evidence. The same weapon found at a person's house is circumstantial evidence. In many cases, circumstantial evidence it all that exists and is more than enough in convicting a criminal of a crime. Here are a few quotes taken from legal books with regard to circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial Evidence
n. Evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probably conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Rights reserved.
Circumstantial Evidence in the law of evidence, indirect evidence of a fact in issue. An inference of the fact in issue can be made from a consideration of a number of other facts. It is sometimes spoken of as a chain but better considered as a cable: the more strands, the stronger, and the absence of one of the strands does not break the connection. The lay person often considers it in some way inferior, but not the lawyer, who appreciates the difficulties inherent in direct eyewitness evidence. Nonetheless, it is only as good as the strands that comprise it. These may have to be evaluated in their own right, otherwise a sound inference maybe based on a defective premise, as where Othello, asking for proof of Desdemona's infidelity, was answered by Iago: 'It is impossible you should see this, Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys, As salt as wolves in pride, and fools as gross As ignorance made drunk: but yet I say, If imputation and strong circumstances, Which lead directly to the door of truth, Will give you satisfaction, you might have it.' (Act 3, Scene 3, line 400).
Collins Dictionary of Law © W. J. Stewart, 2006.
Circumstantial Evidence
Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.
Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much scientific evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
When addressing the circumstantial evidence surrounding the baptismal accounts in the Bible, each individual piece of circumstantial evidence builds up to make a monumental case against immersion as the proper mode of baptism. Yes, the secular world used baptizo (βαπτιζω) largely for immersion. But this is not how the biblical writers used it, which the circumstantial evidence shows. The secular world would used a particular Greek word in a particular way, but the biblical writers used it in a completely different way. In secular Greek literature, yes, the word meant to immerse. But the biblical usage does not support immersion, and Romans 6:4 has nothing to do with baptism whatsoever. The use of this verse is hermeneutical reaching on the part of Baptists and others. When studying the Bible, we need to look at all the evidence, both direct and indirect. Circumstantial evidence is frequently enough to decide a case.
