Most criminals are very careful not to generate any direct evidence while they are committing a crime.
Because of this, courts often depend on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of the case.
Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.
Circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FAKE SEVERAL STRANDS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS YOU ARE A GENIUS
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
Circumstantial evidence is based on reasoning and inference-drawing through probability. The judge must apply his brains ( mostly non- existent ) , logic, common sense perception, and experience to the evidence.
They must consider the inherent probabilities and improbabilities, frequently eliminating the possibility of coincidence.
FIBRE / YARN / STRANDS MAKE A STOUT ROPE STRONG ENOUGH TO HANG A CRIMINAL
In a case of a theft, examples of circumstantial evidence include:-----
Evidence of the defendant's fingerprints at the scene of the crime
The fact that the defendant was found with a large amount of money without being able to give any reason.
In the case of a murder, examples of circumstantial evidence include:--
The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
The fact that he or she lied about his or her alibi
The fact that he or she was in the area at the time that the offence was committed
The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA corresponds to blood or DNA found on the victim's body.
A judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is one of guilt.
Evidence that the accused and victim had a good relationship is not evidence of a lack of motive, but a lack of evidence of a motive
Circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning. Inductive inference is based on observations-and deductive inference is based on theory.
The term "inductive reasoning" requires a CONSCIOUS BRAIN refers to reasoning that takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate.
Inductive reasoning is bottom-up reasoning; it starts with a probable conclusion and induces premises.
Deductive reasoning is also known as 'top-down reasoning' because it goes from general and works its way down more specific
Inductive reasoning is reasoning where the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is the hypothesis, or probable. This means that the conclusion is the part of reasoning that inductive reasoning is trying to prove .
Inductive reasoning is also referred to as 'cause and effect reasoning' or 'bottom-up reasoning' because it seeks to prove a conclusion first. This is usually derived from specific instances to develop a general conclusion.
Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion . Inductive reasoning is used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
Inductive reasoning is, unlike deductive reasoning, not logically rigorous.
Inductive reasoning is sometimes confused with mathematical induction, an entirely different process. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning, in which logical certainties are "daisy chained" to derive a general conclusion about an infinite number of objects or situations.
In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
Inductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of propositional logic. Propositional logic is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences.
Deductive reasoning is reasoning where true premises develop a true and valid conclusion. In the case of deductive reasoning, the conclusion must be true if the premises are also true. Deductive reasoning uses general principles to create a specific conclusion
To be convincing (and admissible in court), circumstantial evidence must:----
Be relevant, of course, that is, tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue
Be cumulative, that is, not limited to one, isolated piece of evidence, but of several inter-connected parts
Be tightly organized and clearly presented: many circumstantial cases fail not because the evidence is weak, but because it is presented in a disorganized and confusing manner which the fact finder cannot understand;
And finally, to be persuasive (and admissible in court) circumstantial evidence must exclude all plausible innocent explanations.
A case based on circumstantial evidence may be just as convincing and reliable as a case based upon direct evidence.. It is important that you approach a circumstantial case by considering and weighing, as a whole, all the facts you find established by the evidence.
It is wrong to consider any particular fact in isolation and ask whether that fact proves the guilt of the accused, or whether there is any explanation for that particular fact or circumstance which is inconsistent with guilt of the accused.
SOMEONE ASKED ME
CAPTAIN , WHY DO YOU USE THIS TERM " THROW SOME BREAD CRUMBS IN HIS GENERAL DIRECTION "
WHEN I SIGNED OFF SHIPS AT THE END OF MY CONTRACT , THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP USUALLY WOULD WANT TO MEET ME TO "DEBRIEF ME "
THEY NEVER DID THIS TO HUNDREDS OF WHITE CAPTAINS , WHO COMMANDED THEIR FLEET.
MOSTLY IT WAS ABOUT FINDING OUT FROM AN "CEREBRAL CAPTAIN " IF THERE WERE LOOP HOLES IN THEIR DIGITAL SYSTEM , FROM WHERE PEOPLE ( IN THE SHORE OFFICE ) WERE MAKING MONEY.
MOSTLY I WOULD BE TALKING TO THE REAL OWNER --NOT A TOP EMPLOYEE.
IF I LIKE HIM I GAVE HIM A FEW LOOP HOLES
IF I DID NOT LIKE THE GUY, I WOULD " THROW SOME BREAD CRUMBS IN HIS GENERAL DIRECTION"--
FUCK YOU. FIND OUT YOURSELF THE HARD WAY.
ALL THIS "INDUCTIVE" AND "DEDUCTIVE" INFERENCE IS ALL LIFTED FROM OUR VEDANTA WITH HALF BAKED UNDERSTANDING.
TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF VEDANTA YOU NEEDED BRAINS--OTHER WISE IT WILL REMAIN AT THE REALM OF " MUNDI OOPAR " --"CHOOTHAD OOPAR " LEVEL.
ALMOST 99 % OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS ARE MAD MEN OR MENTALLY LAME MEN -- WHO HAVE LIFTED FROM VEDANTA WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT.
HOW DO I KNOW?
I AM SMART ENOUGH TO JUDGE THEM.
MY CHARACTER HAS BEEN MOLDED BY THE HOLLYWOOD MOVIE "MY COUSIN VINNY"
TWO BOYS ARE ON DEATH ROW --AND ONE BOY WANTED HIS COUSIN VINNY ( WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A CASE ) TO REPRESENT THEM --WITHOUT FEES OF COURSE.
WHEN THE OTHER BOY OBJECTS , HE SAY " LISTEN THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MAGICIAN TILL TODAY WHOM MY COUSIN VINNY HAS NOT CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN.
A MAGICIAN IS NOTHING BUT A CONMAN--WHO MAKES A CHOOT OUT OF YOU.
LATER VINNY MEETS THE TWO BOYS IN JAIL AND TELL THEM ( TO THE EFFECT ) -- " I AM SMART ENOUGH TO LOOK AT THE CASE MUNDI OOPAR AND CHOOTHAD OOPAR --DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"
THIS MOVIE SHOULD BE SEEN BY EVERY JUDGE--WHO WANTS TO KNOW WHAT CREATING A ROPE OUT OF STRANDS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ALL ABOUT.
IN THE END VINNY AND HIS GIRL FRIEND ( PRETENDING TO BE AN EXPERT WITNESS ) MAKES A CHOOT OUT OF THE JUDGE AND JURY AND WINS THE CASE.
JUDGES SHOULD SEE YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF "MAGICIANS DECODED " --IT HELPS THEM TO STAY GROUNDED AND NOT BE MADE A CHOOT OF IN COURT.
I JOINED A JEWISH COMPANY ( ROTHSCHILDs AGENT ) BASED IN LONDON. WHEN I WENT ON BOARD THE RUSSIAN CHIEF OFFICER ( AN INTELLIGENT MAN ) TOLD ME " IN THIS COMPANY THEY DONT CARE HOW MUCH BEER WE DRINK .. THE LAST CAPTAIN HAS BOUGHT THOUSAND CASES OF BEER AND SINCE IT DID NOT FIT IN THE BONDED LOCKER, IT WAS KEPT IN THE FOAM ROOM AND WE COULD NOT OPEN THE DOOR UNLESS 20 CASES FELL OUT"
I SAID " YOU LAST SENIOR LATVIAN CAPTAIN WILL NOT BE REEMPLOYED "
THEN I MADE THREE SPREAD SHEETS ON ACCOUNTS ( MANUAL / SEMI AUTOMATIC AND AUTOMATIC ) SEND IT TO THE COMPANY " CONGRATULATIONS-- I AM IMPRESSED. FOR DECADES YOU HAVE FOOLED HUNDREDS OF SHIP CAPTAINS THAT YOU DONT CARE HOW MUCH BEER IS CONSUMED BY CREW-- BUT YOU KNEW IT ALL THE TIME "
USUALLY I KEEP QUIET UNLESS SOMEONE PUTS HIS FINGER IN MY PIE. THERE IS NO TIME TO FIGHT SUPERFLUOUS BATTLES
ONCE IN A COMPANY RUN BY AN INDIAN MARWARI JEW Kx RAJxANxHx THEY PUT A FINGER IN MY PIE. I BLASTED THE HEAD CHINESE ACCOUNTANT.
I SAID " THE COMPANY ( NOT SHIPS INTERNAL ACCOUNTS ) ARE NOT BALANCED . YOU MOTHERFUCKERS ARE CHEATING THE JAP OWNERS AND MINTING MONEY "
THE CHINESE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT WAS LITERALLY CRYING AND BEGGING.
I WILL PUT AN EQUIVALENT BELOW-- THIS WAS WHAT WAS HAPPENING --
Three friends go to a bar for drinking beer ( costing 10 dollars a bottle )
As usual they take out one 10 dollar bill each from their wallets and gives the waiter, 3 nos 10 dollar notes or 30 dollars.
The bar owner is in a expansive mood and he tells the waiter -- "happy hour time! -- give them 5 dollars back!!-- i will charge only 25 dollars for 3 beers today ".
The clever waiter knows 5 dollars cannot be split between 3 regular dutchmen. so he pockets 2 dollars and returns 3 one dollar notes .
The three of them put back one dollar each into their respective wallets. Initially each wallet had one 10 dollar bill--now it has only one single dollar bill.
Now comes the perception part:--
All three of them spent 9 dollars each-- 27 dollars total.
The waiter got 2 dollars.
WHERE IS ONE DOLLAR GONE-- POOF???
Be honest to yourself and dont read further, till you figure this out.
You tell an accountant without perception to give you a debit/ credit accounts statement--and see the way he sweats.
See literacy has nothing to do with perception. A illiterate chaiwala boy in mumbai can make an ass out of you, when it comes to accounts.
Daft accountants make a mistake when it comes to "receipts" and " balance ".
Here in this case it is - 30 + 0 = 27 + 3.
Opening cash + receipts = spent cash+ balance cash.
It can never ever be 30 - 3 + 2 = 29
It can never ever be 30 - 3 + 2 = 29
See, you cant argue with dorks.
2 dollars is something which happened in the mann mandir of the waiter.
How do you know that he stole 2 dollars ?
Accounting has to be objective.
IF I GIVE ANOTHER CASE LIKE THIS TO OUR COLLEGIUM JUDGES – HONESTLY , HOW MANY WILL BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT ?
NOBODY – ZERO PERCENTAGE PASS !
THIS IS WHY WE WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THIS “UNSUCCESSFUL LAWYERS TURNED JUDGES “ COLLEGIUM SYSTEM – WHERE JUDGES ARE NOT BRAINY ENOUGH TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE .
LET US HAVE DIRECT JUDGE RECRUITMENT OF BRILLIANT PEOPLE LIKE IN IIT/ IAS.
We need All India Judicial Services (AIJS) — not even NJAC
The Law Commission itself had recommended the formation of AIJS in its 116th Report released back in 1986.
In fact, the Supreme Court had, in 1992, ruled that the recommendations of the Law Commission “be examined expeditiously and implemented as early as possible” by the Centre.
Capt ajit vadakayil
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents.
One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If a beggar was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing very expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.
Criminal prosecutors depend on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based expressly on circumstantial evidence, when trying to establish or deny liability.
Examples of circumstantial evidence:-
motive (past hostility to victim)
opportunity (including exclusive opportunity)
means, capacity and skills
post-offence conduct (flight, false alibi, destruction of evidence)
knowledge and state of mind
disposition for violence by victim
Circumstantial evidence, whether it is in the form of testimony or physical evidence may have an advantage-- because it comes from several different sources, which can be used as a check on each other.
Its disadvantage is that it is indirect: you must piece it all together and then determine whether or not it leads to a reasonable conclusion about the fact which is to be proved— a halfwit cant do it well.
In a circumstantial case no individual fact can prove the guilt of the accused. The judge/ jury MUST find certain basic facts established by the evidence. Those facts do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Taken by themselves they cannot prove the guilt of the accused. The jury is then asked to infer or conclude from a combination of those established facts that a further fact or facts existed.
No conclusions shall be based on mere speculation, conjecture or supposition.
In a case in which a witness admits paying a cash bribe to a government official, for which there is no other direct evidence, the steps of proof might include circumstantial evidence to corroborate the direct evidence. For example, the investigator could:
1. Record in detail (when, where, how, why, etc.) the statement of the witness that he paid the government official in cash (this is the direct evidence);
2. Prove that the government official spent or deposited a significant amount of cash shortly after he allegedly received the cash bribe;
3. Eliminate all other potential sources of income for the official’s cash expenditures or deposits, to the extent possible;
4. Interview the subject official, and show that the official cannot explain the source of the cash expenses or deposits, or lied about it (the last three points are the circumstantial evidence).
Such evidence, if believed by the judge/ jury, would be legally sufficient to convict a defendant in most courts.
Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, it can rarely be established by any other means. We simply cannot look into the head or mind of another person.
Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a series of facts which tend to show whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence.
The judge should decide how much weight to give to any evidence and as such he cannot be a halfwit. All the evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence, should be considered by the judge/ jury in reaching the verdict.
Circumstantial evidence is equally effective as direct evidence--as most criminals take care to eliminate direct evidence . The difference between the two is that direct evidence, on its own settles a fact in dispute (i.e. a confession, eye witness to the crimes, video tape of the crime-- the judge/ jury is not required to draw inferences, the evidence speaks for itself)--
-- whereas circumstantial evidence on its own does not prove anything, but taken in the totality, it is a chain that proves a chain of circumstances the lend itself to guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.
Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened.
In civil and criminal investigations, corroboration is often supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.
In civil and criminal investigations, corroboration is often supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.
Factors essential to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence:
1. That the circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2. That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with
3. That the circumstances must be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.
The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
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.
Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident. By measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it may be found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic science and forensic engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.
Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime.
Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, un-photoshopped pictures and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
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
The rule in Hodge’s Case is no longer considered mandatory instruction when it comes to circumstantial evidence, but it still is relevant
The rule says that one can only convict on circumstantial evidence if the evidence is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. Other rational conclusions must be based on inferences from facts and not merely speculative. Underlying the rule, is the principle of reasonable doubt.
Hodge's Case Definition: A rule limiting the use of circumstantial evidence in the trial of a criminal offence. ... " Where all the evidence is circumstantial the accused can be found guilty only if the evidence is both consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion
In Hodge’s Case, from 19th century England, the accused was charged with robbing and murdering a woman on her way home from the market.
The evidence was circumstantial: He knew the victim; he had been seen near the spot where she was murdered; on the same day as the murder he was seen some distance away burying something in the ground, which turned out to be money of approximately the same amount that the murder victim had in her possession before being robbed."
Pain writes because the case was circumstantial, the jury was charged that before it could find Hodge guilty, it would have to be convinced of two things: (1) that the circumstances were consistent with Hodge having committed the crime, and (2) the facts were inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.
In essence, the jury had to be satisfied that the only rational inference it could draw was that Hodge was guilty.
While there is no longer any legal requirement for a special instruction to be given in a circumstantial evidence case, the principle from Hodge’s Case remains, and "provides an important process of reasoning that assists the trier of fact to determine whether she is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Evidence of motive goes to prove intent as well as the act. Evidence of insolvency or debt can be admitted to establish motive for an offence of theft, fraud or arson.
Circumstantial evidence of knowledge and intent in a fraud investigation might include, among many other things, proof that the subject, or someone acting at his or her direction, e.g., deliberately:
Altered or forged a relevant document, such as a supporting document submitted with a bid or invoice;
Deliberately destroyed a relevant document, or improperly withheld it from investigators;
Lied to investigators or to another party about a material point to hide their guilt, for example, in a bribery case, lied about the source of sudden new wealth (such lies are known in court as a “false exculpatory”);
Obstructed the investigation, by, for example, instructing or threatening a potential witnesses not to meet with or cooperate with investigators;
Committed prior similar acts, which demonstrated that the acts currently under investigation were done knowingly and willfully, and not accidentally or innocently (also known as “pattern evidence”).
The rationale for the above methods of proof, often referred to as “badges of fraud,” is that such acts betray a certain willfulness by the subject and are inconsistent with a defense of accident or mistake.
Factors that affect the credibility of a witness include:--
The plausibility, or the lack thereof, of the witness’s statements when compared to other evidence in the case (i.e., the extent to which the witness’s statement is corroborated);
The consistency or inconsistency of the witness’s current and prior statements;
Whether the witness’s statements promote his or her self-interest, or are neutral or even contrary to it (the latter are termed “statements against interest’ and are considered to be more credible);
Whether the witness has a “reputation for truthfulness” or the contrary, and whether the witness previously has been convicted of a criminal offense (these factors are often admissible in court to attack the credibility of a witness);
To a lesser extent, because of many witnesses’ legitimate concerns for their safety, whether the witness is willing to be identified, sign a statement, or give testimony.
Cases that actually go to trial are almost always based on circumstantial evidence. It's difficult for the defense to get around a video that shows the defendant robbing
TO BE CONTINUED --
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL