Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

What is circumstantial evidence?

I keep seeing posts about how that is all they had with the Casey Anthony case. Can someone please explain why it is weak evidence?

Keep in mind that murder weapons, DNA, and fingerprints are all circumstantial.

Answer Question
 
Carpy

Asked by Carpy at 9:38 PM on Jul. 5, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (5)
  • Testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts to be proved.

    Evidence purportedly based on inferences as opposed to direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is an invention. Circumstantial evidence reaches beyond the boundaries of known truth into the realm of conjecture, imagination, and hunches.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=define+circumstantial+evidence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ojc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Circumstantial+evidence&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=kL0TTsaOKuSosAKdrNnUDw&ved=0CBgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fce33a84b0764b22&biw=1280&bih=615
    beckie66

    Answer by beckie66 at 9:43 PM on Jul. 5, 2011

  • This is a definition I got from a law site:

    "Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact."
    MrsMWF

    Answer by MrsMWF at 9:44 PM on Jul. 5, 2011

  • Indirect evidence...not something actually witnessed-
    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 12:20 AM on Jul. 6, 2011

  • It's not circumstantial evidence that is weak. It's WHAT evidence they have and how it connects the dots. A video of her buying supplies to make chloroform, actual chloroform found at the house, a text or anything from her wanting to obtain chloroform all would have more than likely convicted her, all of which is circumstantial. The pieces of evidence they did not have were the main ones they should have had. They had nothing linking her to the crime scene. Had there been footprints that matched to her shoes, while circumstantial, would have probably gotten her convicted. They didn't have what they needed.

    Trinity001

    Answer by Trinity001 at 12:23 AM on Jul. 6, 2011

  • Its just horrible. poor caylee
    prettynpink343

    Answer by prettynpink343 at 11:52 AM on Jul. 6, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.