3 ms·
I think hearing something would be direct evidence, as opposed to indirect. Plus, aren't we supposed to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty?" And
by sova 5y ago
I think hearing something would be direct evidence, as opposed to indirect. Plus, aren't we supposed to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty?" And I think for such a crime as you were describing there needs to be motive and action, not just one without the other. However, I must agree with you that indirect proof can certainly still be proof. Especially with regard to inductive reasoning and ascertaining truths without direct knowledge (or before/leading up to direct knowledge).
- zcw100 5y agoPeople scream for lots of reasons. I could argue that being murdered is the least likely reason for someone to be screaming. Some legal systems err or the side of "innocent until proven guilty" but you're leaving the last part off, "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's no need to establish a motive for a crime. I believe it may strengthen the case against you but it's not like you can get off for committing a crime just because they couldn't establish a good reason for you to have done it. "So, Mr. Chayote, why did drop that anvil on my client's head, Mr. Roadrunner?", "No reason, that's just what I do", "Case dismissed due to lack of motive!"
- sova 5y agoYou bring up a great point and humorously at that. Thanks for the clarification.