Can circumstantial evidence be convincing evidence?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

Yes, circumstantial evidence can be convincing if it creates a strong inference or supports a logical conclusion. It is often used in court to establish proof of a fact indirectly when direct evidence is not available. However, the weight given to circumstantial evidence depends on the overall strength of the case.