5 ms·
That would still be circumstantial wouldn't it?
by jjcon 5y ago
That would still be circumstantial wouldn't it?
- HWR_14 5y agoI mean, if you showed him buying the same model from Amazon and it had pictures from him testing it in his office, that's probably enough to convict.
- moron4hire 5y agoMost evidence is. "Circumstantial" doesn't automatically make the evidence useless.
- mywittyname 5y agoLots of evidence is circumstantial. Contrary to popular believe, circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence. In isolation, it might not be enough to convict, but when used in conjunction with other evidence, it can create a damning case. 1. The camera contained pictures of owners desk. 2. That model camera was purchased on amazon by the owner. 3. The serial number of the camera indicates that it was sold on amazon and produced around the time of purchase by the owner. 4. The camera was found in a place the person had reasonable, unrestricted access to. 5. owner was found in possession of pictures that look to have been taken by the device, in the position where the device was originally discovered. * I'm not asserting these facts are true, just stating them for the sake of example. In isolation, each of these pieces of evidence don't prove much, but in totality, it is highly unlikely that all of those things would happen to an innocent person. Jury's don't need to be 100% certain to convict, they need a preponderance of evidence. I can see why a prosecutor wouldn't pursue this case against a rich person though. The police are unlikely to do a good job at collecting evidence, a good lawyer will get enough of it thrown out, victims probably won't want to testify anyway, and being a business owner, this person might have clout with local politicians who will make trouble.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoSounds like that scene from Austin powers :) where he keeps saying the pump isn't his. But you're right that's pretty damning.
- nanis 5y ago> Jury's don't need to be 100% certain to convict, they need a preponderance of evidence. IANAL, but since you refer to a prosecutor, they would need "beyond reasonable doubt", right?
- rtkwe 5y agoIndividual pieces of evidence are often circumstantial, taken together they're enough to prove something.
- IIAOPSW 5y agoYes, which is insufficient for a conviction but reasonable suspicion to get a warrant.
- IshKebab 5y agoEnough circumstantial evidence is perfectly sufficient for conviction.