is circumstantial evidence and speculation similar ?
how can circumstantial evidence be used in court but speculation the defense attorney can object to
- Little PrincessLv 71 month ago
Speculation is just guessing. Circumstantial evidence is based upon the physical evidence found at the crime scene.
- SlickterpLv 71 month ago
Speculation is just guessing.
- BruceLv 71 month ago
Circumstantial evidence is based on facts.
Speculation is based on opinion.
- ExoplanetLv 71 month ago
Detective: "We found the defendant standing over the deceased holding a smoking gun, and the caliber of the gun and rifling matched the slug in the deceased's heart" IS ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Jeez Louise. Look up the words you don't know. Intentionally stupid much?
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- KiethLv 71 month ago
There are two kinds of evidence, circumstantial and direct. You see someone in your house eating a cookie. You ask if they ate a cookie and they say no. The cookie crumbs on them is circumstantial evidence, but you can speculate that they actually did eat a cookie, but they don't want to share the rest of them. Direct evidence would be if you actually saw them eating the cookie, and when you asked if there were any more, they said no. Then you can speculate that maybe there are, and again, they don't want to share.
- u_bin_calledLv 71 month ago
Circumstantial evidence is still "evidence"...
For Example: A defendant charged with the murder of a man in Chicago claims he was in Miami on the day of the crime.
The prosecution presents security camera footage showing that he was in Chicago the day before the crime. They also present eye-witness testimony that he picked up his dry cleaning from a Chicago-area cleaner the day after the crime.
The defense can present no hard evidence (such as a plane ticket) that the defendant traveled to and from Miami during that time...and instead offers "he could have hopped a ride on a celebrity's private jet"...
The evidence offered by the prosecution is "circumstantial"...it does not prove that he was in Chicago the day of the crime, but it does present circumstances that undermines the defense claim.
The defense claim that "he could have traveled by private jet" is speculation.