0
What else can I help you with?
How is circumstantial evidence distinguished from physical evidence in a criminal investigation?
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it, while physical evidence is tangible evidence that can be directly observed or measured. In a criminal investigation, physical evidence is typically more reliable and persuasive than circumstantial evidence because it provides concrete proof of a fact.
What does circumstantial evidence mean in terms of Tom's trial?
Circumstantial evidence means that the person is being accused based on evidence that cannot be backed up. In other words, circumstantial evidence means that you can infer that the person did which can be bad or right. It can also be that the person is lame.
What is circumstantial evidence what has it got to do with tom's conviction?
"Circumstantial evidence" is indirect evidence. It relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact to be proved. Tom was proven guilty due to two eye-witnesses with very little credibility; however it can still be counted as direct evidence. There is much circumstantial evidence for Tom Robinson, such as the fact that his left arm is useless and that, through deduction, we can conclude that Mayella Ewell was beaten by a left-handed person.
What are the rules of evidence and proof?
Rules of evidence are a set of rules that determine what can and cannot be admitted in Court. Evidence is how you prove something in court.
Can circumstantial evidence be convincing evidence?
Actually, circumstantial evidence can be more convincing than eyewitness evidence. That is what the TV show CSI is all about. If we find the accused person's fingerprints at the murder scene, the victim's blood on the accused's clothes, the bullet in the victim matches the accused's gun, and the accused had the victim's bloodstained wallet in his pocket, that is pretty convincing evidence even if it is circumstantial. Eyewitness evidence, on the other hand, is notoriously inaccurate and is frequently falsified. If the evidence against the accused is the statement of a person known to hate him, who claims to have seen him commit the murder from 200 yards away on a stormy night while not wearing his glasses, that is not very convincing evidence even if it is direct. On the other hand, just because someone had a motive to kill someone (what ever it may be), had the ability to, and has no alibi, doesn't mean that that person killed anyone. Where the circumstantial evidence is open to other interpretations, it can easily lead to false conclusions.
Can you be convicted of a crime in NSW Australia if there are no witnesses and no evidence or proof to back up the claim against you?
That's where circumstantial evidence comes into effect, it could go against you or it could not, only time will tell.
Can you file a motion to get a executor of the estate removed if they are abusing there power?
Yes. Be prepared to show proof or evidence of the abuse and have reliable witnesses. State your complaints to the court clearly and in a business like manner.
Example of burden of proof?
The "burden of proof" is the amount of evidence and/or testimony necessary to convince the court or jury of your guilt.
Can you go to court to recover money from someone if you have no proof you gave it to them?
Probably not, unless you have reliable witnesses.
Is ther proof that santa exists?
The stories say he is a "jolly old elf" which would mean Santa is not a regular person, so you won't find proof that he exists like a regular person. All we really have is circumstantial evidence: presents.
Is legal proof same as burden of proof?
No. Legal proof refers to some admissible evidence to prove something, such as a witness's testimony or a document showing something. Burden of proof refers to the level of proof needed for the court, such as preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the difference between the standard of proof and the burden of proof in legal proceedings?
The standard of proof refers to the level of certainty required to prove a claim in court, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases or "preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases. The burden of proof, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the party making the claim to provide evidence and convince the court of its validity. In essence, the standard of proof sets the bar for how convincing the evidence must be, while the burden of proof determines who has the obligation to meet that standard.
