ZoriahNZ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 22,356
Most murder cases are tried and won based on circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is usually a direct confession, eyewitnesses to the killing or recorded footage of the crime taking place or proof that the suspect was at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the killing.
Circumstantial evidence includes: murder weapon, blood spatter, fingerprints, DNA left at crime scene, basically any kind of forensic evidence which requires inferences as to what happened. Digital evidence such as online searches, phone records, phone pings, GPS or On Star car data etc is circumstantial but also proving to be extremely vital in a lot of cases tried over the past decade.
It's important to acknowledge that circumstantial evidence is given equal weight under the law. Eye witness accounts are notoriously spotty, confessions can be extorted under duress and so on.
Probably the closest thing we've got to direct evidence - which basically means stuff that cannot be disputed as to the facts - is the Cash video. The Cash dog tail video taken by PM firmly establishes that AM's alibi was a lie and that he was at the kennels at 8.44pm. The defense has had to belatedly admit this, due to the strength of this fact - his voice can be heard speaking on the video and proves he was there mere minutes before both of the victims' phones were locked and basically went dead forever.
Direct evidence is usually a direct confession, eyewitnesses to the killing or recorded footage of the crime taking place or proof that the suspect was at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the killing.
Circumstantial evidence includes: murder weapon, blood spatter, fingerprints, DNA left at crime scene, basically any kind of forensic evidence which requires inferences as to what happened. Digital evidence such as online searches, phone records, phone pings, GPS or On Star car data etc is circumstantial but also proving to be extremely vital in a lot of cases tried over the past decade.
It's important to acknowledge that circumstantial evidence is given equal weight under the law. Eye witness accounts are notoriously spotty, confessions can be extorted under duress and so on.
Probably the closest thing we've got to direct evidence - which basically means stuff that cannot be disputed as to the facts - is the Cash video. The Cash dog tail video taken by PM firmly establishes that AM's alibi was a lie and that he was at the kennels at 8.44pm. The defense has had to belatedly admit this, due to the strength of this fact - his voice can be heard speaking on the video and proves he was there mere minutes before both of the victims' phones were locked and basically went dead forever.
