Circumstantial Evidence.

[derekpara]

Without the evidence of reliable witnesses, forensics, CCTV etc. can massive circumstantial evidence ever tilt the balance of probability to such an extent that a 'Guilty' verdict is safe ?

I've put this in the News category for current reasons.

D

[Old_Geezer]

In my uninformed opinion I thought it always could. If overwhelming it becomes beyond reasonable doubt. But I could be wrong. Should be in the law forum really.

[Jackdaw33]

Yes.

[jno]

Yes, I think so. The court has to assess the reliability and significance of all the evidence and some of it will be more persuasive than other bits. But if a man walks into a house with a clean axe and out again with a bloody one, a jury might well find that's enough to link him to the dismembered corpse inside, especially if he can offer no innocent explanation.

[jackthehat]

As a society we managed for hundreds of years before scientific advancements.......and not all of those verdicts will have been wrong.

[Garaman]

Circumstantial evidence can be more convincing to a jury than direct evidence, which after all is just the word of someone else.

[Gromit]

All evidence can be tainted. Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Circumstantial evidence is no worse than any other, and if no acceptable alibi can be produced to refute that, then yes, it should be permitted.

[hc4361]

Please define circumstantial evidence.

[Garaman]

Interesting that you say without forensics when forensics is really about the gathering of circumstantial evidence.

[Peter Pedant]

is a confession circumstantial ?
and should we rely on that - well we have learnt not to ....

and Steven Waldorf - did he just say he was shot in mistake for David Martin or was that really the case ?
he did end up wiv bullets in his liver and £250 000 in his pocket. ( he would rather have had neither he said )

mrs McKay killers were convicted on circumstantial evidence -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Muriel_McKay

it is thought they fed her body to the pigs. we were told you should x ray the pigs if you think they have been fed anything they shouldna - hey hahahaha I must tell you

and in reply s/o posted: do you have any evidence for that statement or is it just your opinion ! ( good one huh ?)

[New Judge]

“Please define circumstantial evidence.”

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which supports an allegation but which does not, by itself, prove it. As an example, if a fingerprint is found on the outside of a window of a house that has been burgled it shows that the owner of the fingerprint touched the outside of the window. It does not prove that he broke in. Usually circumstantial evidence is provided to support any direct evidence used to support the allegation. In my example let’s say the householder caught sight of the miscreant inside and suspected it was his next door neighbour because of, say, his height or voice. But he could not positively identify him because it was dark. The circumstantial evidence of his fingerprint outside could be adduced to support the allegation that he had indeed burgled the house. Circumstantial evidence can usually have an alternative explanation to the allegation. Direct evidence usually does not.

There are no separate rules governing the acceptance of circumstantial evidence. Provided it meets all the governing rules of evidence then it would be admitted. Occasionally cases are presented based entirely on circumstantial evidence. If there are a number of separate strands of circumstantial evidence (none of which, by themselves, prove conclusively that the accused is guilty) the CPS may decide to put the matter before a court. It will be for the “triers of fact” (a bench of Magistrates of a jury) to determine whether that evidence is sufficient to convict.

“when forensics is really about the gathering of circumstantial evidence.”

That’s certainly true. Most evidence gathered by forensic means is circumstantial because the forensic scientists were not there to witness the deed. Forensics may prove that a bullet from a particular gun killed the victim. They may also prove that the accused, at some time or other, fired the said gun (from, say, fingerprints or residue). But even taken together this does not prove he fired the fatal shot. But that is an example of extremely strong but nonetheless circumstantial evidence. It may be countered by something like "Yes I have used that gun to shoot rabbits in my back garden. But I lent it to my mate a week before the killing took place".

[Gromit]

The OP is alluding to the circumstantial evidence that the attempted murder of the Russia emigres, and the finger being pointed at Russia.
I feel certain that the authorities have more than circumstantial evidence in this case. We are not being told what it is for national security reasons, but MI5 and GCHQ have a sophisticated network of intelligence gathering.

[sevenOP]

Would this be considered as 'circumstantial evidence' ?

https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29250159_725479227839923_84479383892594363_n.jpg?oh=5496053e2733ff0234ac85f8f9eb6c36&oe=5B40F34C

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-russian-corbyn-photoshop/

[New Judge]

There’s confusion being introduced here.

“The OP is alluding to the circumstantial evidence that the attempted murder of the Russia emigres, and the finger being pointed at Russia.
I feel certain that the authorities have more than circumstantial evidence in this case.”

There’s a difference between “pointing the finger at Russia” and securing a conviction for attempted murder. “Russia” cannot face a criminal prosecution for attempted murder. Only an individual or individuals can.

Leaving aside the need to prove intent to kill, to support that prosecution there would have to be evidence to show that a named individual carried out the act which led to the victims coming into contact with the deadly toxin. It’s very doubtful that they have such evidence. They may be able to show that the toxin could only have originated in Russia from an official source. They will almost certainly be able to show that the victim was a political opponent of the present Russian regime. That’s certainly enough circumstantial evidence to point the finger at Russia. But it’s not direct evidence against an individual and falls a long way short of being sufficient to secure a conviction in a criminal court.

[Gromit]

New Judge,

Talikg that ^ into account, should the British Government have waited until it had strong proof?

[derekpara]

I am not concluding this very interesting discussion but I thank you all for your intelligent responses and, in particular, to NJ for his learned tutorial from the Bench.

I agree with you Gromit; as in most things political we only know what we are allowed to know, and sometimes for good reason.

[Peter Pedant]

excellent answer thank you NJ

more emphasis should be put on - tis is NOT a criminal case and could not be - state sponsored poisoning kinda isnt on the statute book
so legal level of proof is not really what the fame is about


it is all political and to be fought out in the political arena

When the word Military chemical weapons is mentioned does anyone wonder if the military involved is Private Pike ?

showing where it is from may be easier than peope think

shove it thro a gas chromatograph and find out the impurities - if the profile matches the ones in stock - you would be able to tell its provenance

when the New Yoirk SUbway and US postal service was infected with Anthrax ..... people wondered whcih terrorist group had done it (not that difficult) but DNA analysis showed the nearest anthrax strain it was related to was .....
Fort Detrick ( US \Porton Down ) eek they didnt expect that!

the lab tech suspect later committed suicide

[New Judge]

"New Judge,

Talikg that ^ into account, should the British Government have waited until it had strong proof?"

No, not in my opinion.

They were looking to identify the most likely source of the atrocity. They were not looking to secure a criminal conviction.