| Evidence can be direct or circumstantial. What is the | | | | statements, or offenders' confessions, may influence |
| difference? Direct evidence refers to evidence that | | | | the interpretation of test results made by the |
| establishes a fact. A good example of direct | | | | medical examiner (ME). Direct evidence may also |
| evidence is statements or confessions made by the | | | | influence the ME's reconstruction of the crime scene. |
| witnesses. Circumstantial evidence, on the flipside, | | | | In general, direct evidence is not considered to be as |
| requires that a judge and/or jury make indirect | | | | reliable as circumstantial evidence. Historically, |
| judgments, or inferences, about what transpired at | | | | eyewitnesses are poor at identifying perpetrators or |
| the scene of a crime. For instance, if fingerprints or | | | | remembering certain events. Therefore, their |
| hairs found at the scene are consistent with that of | | | | eyewitness accounts are not always credible. People |
| a perpetrator, jurors may infer that the print or hair | | | | have a tendency to make up events as opposed |
| definitely belongs to the defendant. Since fingerprints | | | | simply restating actual events like a tape recorder. |
| or hairs were found at the crime scene, those pieces | | | | Furthermore, circumstantial evidence is more |
| of evidence links the defendant to he scene. | | | | objective while direct evidence is subjective. |
| Circumstantial evidence is not definitive proof. It only | | | | Circumstantial evidence provides a more credible |
| provides a general idea of what occurred at the | | | | answer. An eyewitness account of what happened |
| crime scene. Many times, evidence identified | | | | can be wrong approximately half the time whereas |
| forensically is circumstantial. However, direct | | | | saliva and blood evidence can accurately set apart |
| evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, victims' | | | | one person from the rest of the general population. |