Found ONE?
Where are the other 3-5 million?
"Indisputable proof" isn't always available...murderers are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence alone. Sometimes we have to pull our own heads from our ass and connect the dots based on likelihood and circumstances. Third graders seeking truth and reality do it...you should too....No?
What a basket of bullshit.
First, people are NOT convicted on circumstantial evidence. If they are, those convictions are overturned.
Secondly, you just made an argument that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence means you can make wild accusations without any proof and be satisfied those wild accusations are true.
Jesus H. Christ. You haven't a lick of common sense, much less a logical cell in your head.
You are stupid enough to bleev five million illegals were able to register to vote, completely undetected.
And then they all voted, again completely undetected.
It takes a special idiot to bleev that.
Damn...you desperate, ignorant whack-jobs are are even dumber than I thought. I can't believe I'm even engaging in such a moot point...WE HAVE OUR GUY!
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote
If you'd pull you head from your ass and your lips from that ******* penis you'd be able to seek true clarity by using your little tiny peanut brain to connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, you desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago, you especially want to play dumb to this issue so unless someone presents you with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting you wouldn't believe any figure. You're welcome for the free lesson....read on dumbass!
Circumstantial evidence
Page issues
For other uses, see
Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is
evidence that relies on an
inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast,
direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each
corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular
inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[
citation needed].
Circumstantial evidence allows a
trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.
[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a
witness saying that she saw a
defendant stab a
victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an
expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a
forensic scientist may provide results of
ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.
Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.
Validity of circumstantial evidenceEdit
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[
ambiguous].
[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[
citation needed][
by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber
Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial,
University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."
[4]The 2004 murder trial of
Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[
ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.
[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,
[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.
[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.
However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.
[8]
