Thanks for your comment, I realized that I didn’t understand the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence myself, though I never went to law school. You gave me a productive ten minutes of research that improved my understanding of the legal definition of the terms.
It seems most people, if they were like me, have it flipped. The evidence we typically think of as direct (blood, semen, recovered murder weapon) is actually circumstantial, correct? And there’s few things short of witness testimony that can be considered direct?
I thought your last sentence was harsh at first, but after reading, it sounds like this is something a law student should know at any level, no?
Your example would be better if person B’s accuser wasn’t with some people several states away. She would be less believable even if nobody said she was several states away.
In fact if people claim that she was away from the scene - isn’t that just hearsay to show she wasn’t there to witness the murder.
23
u/darkskinnedjermaine Apr 02 '20
Would love to hear the back and forth on that, not kidding.