Excellent simple explanation of "Direct" versus "Circumstantial" evidence

[NewJeffCT]

from Rep. Eric Swalwell. Only 5 tweets long, but he makes it very easy to understand.

Link to tweet

THREAD: Let's talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence. The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there's no "direct evidence of collusion" b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn't agree w/ this. What matters is if there's evidence of collusion.

[unblock]

1. the classic example of the clincher, getting caught with a smoking gun, is circumstantial evidence.

[demmiblue]

2. The rest:

THREAD: Let's talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence. The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there's no "direct evidence of collusion" b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn't agree w/ this. What matters is if there's evidence of collusion.

2/ Every juror in America is told "Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge...and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. NEITHER is entitled to any greater weight than the other."

3/ What is circumstantial evidence? Suppose I’m trying to prove that my son Nelson ate some freshly baked brownies that we made together. When I turned away, all of the brownies were out. When I turned back, one was gone...

4/ I didn't see Nelson eat a brownie -- that would be direct evidence. But when I returned, he had crumbs on his shirt, and chocolate on his lips and fingers. That would be considered circumstantial evidence that Nelson ate a brownie.

5/ It's not direct, but that doesn't matter. The law says it's treated exactly the same way. So, @SenatorBurr, have you seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion? #RussiaInvestigation

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095754587368292353.html

[NewJeffCT]

3. Thanks

that was helpful

[EffieBlack]

4. Circumstantial evidence is often more reliable than direct evidence

Eyewitnesses are prone to mistake, misperceptions, confusion, untruthfulness, etc. Circumstantial evidence is more objective.

[NewJeffCT]

5. good point as well

thanks for that reminder