3 ms·

Your choice of examples actually supports the statistical nature of the distinction between circumstantial and noncircumstantial evidence. That the blood on the

by psb217 14y ago

Your choice of examples actually supports the statistical nature of the distinction between circumstantial and noncircumstantial evidence. That the blood on the defendant's shoe came from the victim's body is based on a probabilistic test. That the blood on the defendant's shoe arrived through physical co-presence of the shoe and the blood's source body (whether or not it was the victim's) is also only "hard" evidence in the sense that other explanations are relatively improbable. The difference between the probabilities involved in the above inferences, and the analogous inferences ineluctably underlying any hard evidence, and those involved in circumstantial evidence like your coat fiber, are purely quantitative. In some sense, hard evidence is that which can be accepted "beyond a reasonable doubt", while circumstantial evidence is that which does not pass such a test. Unfortunately, "beyond a reasonable doubt" escapes precise definition. Yet, courts need to function, so we tacitly agree that sufficiently large quantitative differences are (legally) indistinguishable from qualitative differences. (EDIT: I'm saying the same thing as mikeash, whose response appeared while I was writing my own)

gamblor956 14y ago
You guys still aren't getting it; circumstantial evidence is not about the probability that the evidence is what it claims to be, it is about the necessary inference about what the evidence proves if the evidence is what it claims to be. Noncircumstantial evidence directly supports the point for which it is introduced if the evidence is what it claims to be. The victim's blood on the defendant's shoe directly supports the point that the defendant was in the victim's presence when the victim was dying if it is established that the blood is the victim's blood. Circumstantial evidence requires an additional inference beyond this step. The fibers are circumstantial because the fiber doesn't prove anything except that the someone wearing those gloves might have been at the crime scene at some point in time. You require the additional inference that the fiber was left at the scene at the time of the crime, which the fiber by itself does not prove but which can be "circumstantially" proved in combination with other evidence. For example, if the defendant, or some other witness, claims that the defendant was never at the scene of the crime at any point in time (specifically, but not limited to, periods prior to the crime), the presence of the rare fibers from his rare gloves is circumstantial evidence that the only time he was at the scene of the crime was when the crime occurred. In other words, the circumstances surrounding the fiber are the proof, not the fiber itself.
- psb217 14y ago
  Your second paragraph ignores the inference required to go from victim's blood on defendant's shoe to defendant's shoe was in physical proximity to victim's body. It also ignores the inference required to go from blood is measured as matching victim's to blood came from victim's body. It also ignores the inference required to go from blood was deposited onto defendant's shoe directly by victim's body to defendant was wearing shoe at time of blood deposit and thus in presence of victim's still-bleeding corpse. The (admittedly pedantic) point being made is that proving 'x' never directly supports anything other than the truth of 'x'. Moving from 'x' is true to 'y' is true always requires further inference.

by psb217 14y ago

gamblor956 14y ago

You guys still aren't getting it; circumstantial evidence is not about the probability that the evidence is what it claims to be, it is about the necessary inference about what the evidence proves if the evidence is what it claims to be. Noncircumstantial evidence directly supports the point for which it is introduced if the evidence is what it claims to be. The victim's blood on the defendant's shoe directly supports the point that the defendant was in the victim's presence when the victim was dying if it is established that the blood is the victim's blood. Circumstantial evidence requires an additional inference beyond this step. The fibers are circumstantial because the fiber doesn't prove anything except that the someone wearing those gloves might have been at the crime scene at some point in time. You require the additional inference that the fiber was left at the scene at the time of the crime, which the fiber by itself does not prove but which can be "circumstantially" proved in combination with other evidence. For example, if the defendant, or some other witness, claims that the defendant was never at the scene of the crime at any point in time (specifically, but not limited to, periods prior to the crime), the presence of the rare fibers from his rare gloves is circumstantial evidence that the only time he was at the scene of the crime was when the crime occurred. In other words, the circumstances surrounding the fiber are the proof, not the fiber itself.

psb217 14y ago
Your second paragraph ignores the inference required to go from victim's blood on defendant's shoe to defendant's shoe was in physical proximity to victim's body. It also ignores the inference required to go from blood is measured as matching victim's to blood came from victim's body. It also ignores the inference required to go from blood was deposited onto defendant's shoe directly by victim's body to defendant was wearing shoe at time of blood deposit and thus in presence of victim's still-bleeding corpse. The (admittedly pedantic) point being made is that proving 'x' never directly supports anything other than the truth of 'x'. Moving from 'x' is true to 'y' is true always requires further inference.