Replies

Most murder cases are entirely circumstantial, because very few people kill another person in the presence of third parties.

I disagree. Frequently there is forensic evidence. Bullets in the body, knife wounds, fiber samples, blood with DNA evidence, footprints and fingerprints all come to mind.

Aren't those things circumstancial evidence?

I googled cicumstantial evidence .They have a good explaination of the definition.

Those things you listed are circumstantial evidence, if you're listing them in relation to a murder case.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. One often-used example is: You are in your house one night, asleep. You come out the next day and see snow on the ground--snow which wasn't there before. The snow on the ground is circumstantial evidence from which you can infer that snow fell from the sky during the night.

You find a bullet in the body of a dead person, say, and there's no gun anywhere near the body. You COULD infer that the bullet was shot by some other person. Then they do the ballistics tests on the bullet, and match it to a gun. The gun is found in the possession of Mr. X. You COULD infer that Mr. X shot the bullet that killed the dead person. Notice that there is room for mistake here. So there'd also have to be some proof to refute Mr. X, if he shows proof that he didn't HAVE his gun at the time the now-dead person was shot. And on and on, making logical inferences.

You find, say, Laci's blood in the kitchen of the Petersons' former home. You can infer that Laci was in the kitchen, and that she was bleeding while she was in there. Just a piece of the puzzle; doesn't prove the whole case.

You find, say, Scott's fingerprints on some duct tape that was found attached to Laci's body. You can infer that Scott handled the duct tape at some point. Once again, this one thing will not prove the case. But it will give rise to that inference at least. This might lead to an inference that it was Scott who put the duct tape on Laci's body.

You find a hole in Laci's abdomen, and it looks like a knife wound. You can infer that someone stabbed her. This doesn't prove that Scott was the one who stabbed her. But suppose you found Scott's fingerprints on a knife which was in a dumpster, and the knife's blade seems to fit the wound? You can infer that Scott has at some time handled a knife which fits the wound in Laci's abdomen. Another building block.

Fiber evidence: Say you find fibers on a murder victim's body, and the fibers match those of a blue carpet in Mr. X's car. You COULD infer that the now-dead person was lying on the floor of Mr. X's car at one time. Why the heck would someone be lying on the floor of a car? You could infer that they were incapacitated or dead at the time.

Direct evidence: Someone comes forward and says, "I saw Laci come running out of the house, and Scott came after her, and he grabbed her by the neck and pulled her inside. Then I heard her screaming, but suddenly her screaming stopped. I was there. I didn't know what to do, etc." Actually, I guess there's even an element of circumstantial evidence here--if this imaginary eyewitness didn't actually see Scott murder her.

I disagree. Frequently there is forensic evidence. Bullets in the body, knife wounds, fiber samples, blood with DNA evidence, footprints and fingerprints all come to mind.

And, the prosecution may have some of those that you mentioned, none of us know what they have as yet!

Most murder cases are entirely circumstantial, because very few people kill another person in the presence of third parties.

I disagree. Frequently there is forensic evidence. Bullets in the body, knife wounds, fiber samples, blood with DNA evidence, footprints and fingerprints all come to mind.

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, because it isn't the testimony of an eyewitness.