Tell me about circumstantial evidence, please
- Thread starter RBEmerson
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,686
- Reaction score
- 4,957
Look up the definitions of the following terms:
A preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will be a good place to start researching what you need to know.
Look up circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence, too. You may be confusing the two.
A preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will be a good place to start researching what you need to know.
Look up circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence, too. You may be confusing the two.
What you've described amounts to reasonable suspicion, but falls short of probable cause. So, no prosecution would be likely at this point. In fact, you've described multiple crimes perpetrated/supported by a multi-party conspiracy--which has always been very difficult to prove (cattle rustling, like horse stealing, was a capital offense).
Even in the 1870s, your investigator would need some sort of direct evidence to seek an indictment & subsequent prosecution--like a co-conspirator confessing, providing corroborative (hard) evidence, and testifying in court.
Alternatively, an incensed mob with a rope tended not to be so hamstrung by such civilized procedures.
Even in the 1870s, your investigator would need some sort of direct evidence to seek an indictment & subsequent prosecution--like a co-conspirator confessing, providing corroborative (hard) evidence, and testifying in court.
Alternatively, an incensed mob with a rope tended not to be so hamstrung by such civilized procedures.
Sorry to be the bad guy here, but this sample of the writing is much too large for a research thread. Please delete the quoted portion of your post and summarize it instead.
If you worry about protecting your copyright, then don't post what you've written. Adding a notation that the material is copyrighted is needless and, to me personally, mildly insulting. No one here wants to steal your writing; we have our own. Posting it on a publicly accessible board where any non-member lurking can copy it seems unwise if you fear theft.
Maryn, whose writing has been stolen and sold, for the record
If you worry about protecting your copyright, then don't post what you've written. Adding a notation that the material is copyrighted is needless and, to me personally, mildly insulting. No one here wants to steal your writing; we have our own. Posting it on a publicly accessible board where any non-member lurking can copy it seems unwise if you fear theft.
Maryn, whose writing has been stolen and sold, for the record
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,686
- Reaction score
- 4,957
Once upon a time when I was a legal assistant specializing in civil litigation, it fell to me to call the ranch manager for the Mormon Church in Utah and ask if anyone had ever brought a lawsuit against that entity for cattle rustling. True story. (The church's legal beagles claimed no such lawsuit had been brought.)
Probably because they handled it themselves:
We don’t delete threads as a general rule. If you no longer wish to pursue your question, just let the thread run its course and drop off the front page. However, I’d like to encourage you not to. You have raised interesting questions aboutl nineteenth-century criminal jurisprudence and you might get interesting answers. You won’t be permitted to post substantial chunks of your piece in this part of the forum, which is what you had done in the post you deleted. But you can still pursue your question without that.
Ah, it's a pity nobody quoted the OP for posterity, since I'm sure the information offered up here by the various members, when paired with the original question, would surely have been of use to other members and lurkers in future.