No
f*** i dont know
to determine if there is sufficient evidence to formally charge the defendant / suspect.
The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.
With questions like those, I suspect that your handwriting is not legible at all.
DNA evidence found at the crime scene can be compared to the suspect's DNA to determine if there is a match, providing a strong link between the suspect and the crime scene. Other evidence such as fingerprints, footprints, or personal belongings left at the scene can also help link a suspect to a crime. Eyewitness testimony or surveillance footage placing the suspect at the scene can further establish their connection.
The evidence may not be sufficient to convict the suspect in the case.
when there is enough evidence to prove it
No, the suspect's admission to guilt does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence in the case.
If you have enough evidence.
The evidence that the suspect was at the scene of the crime includes eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage placing them at the location, and forensic evidence such as fingerprints or DNA linking them to the scene.
An example of indirect evidence is finding footprints near a crime scene that match the suspect's shoe size and style, but without directly linking the suspect to the crime. This evidence could suggest the suspect was present at the scene, but does not definitively prove their involvement in the crime.
The attorney's evidence prooved the suspect guilty of the crime.