Logical Gal and the bias against circumstantial evidence
Surprised by Logic
Ask 9 out of 10 passers-by and they will most likely maintain that circumstantial evidence is weak.
And maybe one piece is, but I have been learning that there is POWER in the cumulative effect of multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence.
My tutor is a cold-case detective, J. Warner Wallace. The only cases he works are cold murder cases that date back 10 to 30 years. There is no date beyond which one cannot be tried for murder in the state of California. A cold case is one that is old, unresolved and left untouched, gathering dust until someone decides to re-open it.
Detective Wallace recounts in his book, Cold-Case Christianity about the ultimate cold case, the murder of Jesus Christ, how he has to instruct jurors on the 2 kinds of evidence. Most Americans have no idea that one can convict a suspect of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone! But you need a lot of it.
Here is a brief primer: There is direct evidence and indirect evidence.
- Direct is when you have Bob testify that he saw Frank stab the victim
- Indirect is when you see a bloody knife in Frank’s car, plus blood on Frank’s pants, and you hear Frank threaten the deceased victim. A
Inferences drawn from multiple pieces of indirect or circumstantial evidence (think 20-30) can add up to a powerful case against a suspect. In fact Wallace himself says his ONLY convictions have been in circumstantial cases.
The standard for the burden of proof in such criminal cases is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt‘…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>