Active Now

Danilo_G
Element 99
Slartibartfast
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Direct Evidence. You see someone shoot someone dead. Circumstantial Evidence. You hear a shot. Run out and see?
RosieG

Direct Evidence. You see someone shoot someone dead. Circumstantial Evidence. You hear a shot. Run out and see?

 Someone standing over a dead body with gun in hand later tound to only have his fingerprints.

Can both be convicted of the murder? When is Circumstantial Evidence discounted? How often are people CONVICTED on circumstantial evidence? How often Direct Evidence available?

Posted - February 13, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    Who is deciding the evidence?   If it is done soely by the judge, then rules are probably going to be considered more professionally than with 12 peers.   Then there is the sad fact that juries are very confused.  Many juries come to the wrong conclusions because they do not know how to weigh evidence properly.   It boggles my mind how many juries get it right in light of the fact that they have so little schooling regarding the law to begin with.


    But judges screw up a lot too and that is why we have appellate and supreme courts to assist in weighing evidence if the case seems to be unfairly decided.
      February 13, 2019 10:47 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    The Senate Report concluded  there was no DIRECT evidence of collusion. That does not mean a dam* thing! A former FEDERAL prosecuter said it is very RARE that DIRECT evidence is ever available. Usually cases are based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE which is no less  meaningful. Both DIRECT and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence are useful usable meaningful IMPORTANT. So if you listen very carefully you will understand why apologist toady sycophants of the gasbag insist  there is no direct evidence of collusion. They don't know any better. They believe that vindicates the corrupt guilty person. IT DOES NOT! Thank you for your reply Sharon!  :)
      February 14, 2019 3:47 AM MST
    0