- Home
- Search
- Settings
- Top Contributors
- Help Center
Answer:
Actually, circumstantial evidence can be more convincing than eyewitness evidence. That is what the TV show CSI is all about. If we find the accused person's fingerprints at the murder scene, the victim's blood on the accused's clothes, the bullet in the victim matches the accused's gun, and the accused had the victim's bloodstained wallet in his pocket, that is pretty convincing evidence even if it is circumstantial. Eyewitness evidence, on the other hand, is notoriously inaccurate and is frequently falsified. If the evidence against the accused is the statement of a person known to hate him, who claims to have seen him commit the murder from 200 yards away on a stormy night while not wearing his glasses, that is not very convincing evidence even if it is direct.
On the other hand, just because someone had a motive to kill someone (what ever it may be), had the ability to, and has no alibi, doesn't mean that that person killed anyone. Where the circumstantial evidence is open to other interpretations, it can easily lead to false conclusions.
On the other hand, just because someone had a motive to kill someone (what ever it may be), had the ability to, and has no alibi, doesn't mean that that person killed anyone. Where the circumstantial evidence is open to other interpretations, it can easily lead to false conclusions.
First answer by Exileofdarkness.
Last edit by Bolognaking.
Contributor trust: 238
[recommend contributor
recommended].
Question popularity:
2
[recommend question].
How do you spell Corey in Chinese?
Answer it!
Where are the other drugs going?
Answer it!
How do you get to times square from EWR airport?
In: New York City
Answer it!
» more