WarmupImagine that you traveled back in time to the Fourth of July, 1999. You are at Stanford Stadium, watching the semifinal of the Women’s World Cup soccer match. Mia Hamm, star of the United States team, has just received the ball on a breakaway. She is 60 yards from Brazil’s goal. Brazilian star Sissi is the closest opponent to Hamm and is 10 yards behind her. Mia takes off for Brazil’s goal and, while dribbling the ball, is able to run at a speed of 6.8 yards per second. Sissi takes off at the same time as Hamm and runs at 8.4 yards per second. (She is able to run faster because she isn’t dribbling the soccer ball.) Hamm has decided to shoot at the exact moment that Sissi catches up to her, because at that point it will still be difficult for Sissi to block the shot when she is side by side with Hamm. How far away from the goal will Hamm be when she shoots?

4.3 Evidence

Evidence

Judging whether or not a piece of evidence is ‘good’ depends on what it is being used as evidence for.

Raw data and facts become evidence when it is used as a reason for some conclusion or verdict; or to put it another way, when something is inferred from it.

Types of Evidence

Evidence can be usefully be subdivided into two categories: direct and indirect (circumstantial)

Direct evidence is first-hand and immediate.

The most direct form of evidence is what we experience with our own senses.

Testimony

‘Testimony’ means giving an account.

A witness statement is testimony.

If the testimony is an account of something that the person has witnessed or experienced first-hand, it counts as direct evidence.

This is in contrast to what is known as ‘hearsay evidence’.

Circumstantial Evidence

By ‘circumstantial evidence’ we mean a fact, or set of facts, which may be used to support a conclusion or verdict indirectly.

The facts themselves—the circumstances—are not in question. What is in question is what they signify, or permit us to infer.

Corroboration

When pieces of circumstantial evidence together provide overwhelming evidence of guilt.

This is known as the ‘smoking gun’.

Scenario

An unpopular congressman, visiting a university, was greeted by a large student demonstration. As he was stepping out of his car a raw egg thrown from the midst of the crowd struck him on the side of the head and broke, followed by a second and third. Soon the politician was cowering under a hail of missiles. As the crowd surged forward, he was helped back into the car by security officers and driven away.

Scenario

A 20-year old sociology student, Amelia Jackson, was arrested soon afterwards. She had been seen in the crowd, and was caught on surveillance cameras shouting angrily and holding a large placard on a pole.

Jackson was earing a backpack containing some provisions she said she had bought in the market that morning. Among them was a cardboard egg box with spaces for ten eggs, but with only six eggs in it. She was taken into custody for questioning and later charged with assault, on the grounds that she had thrown one or more objects at the congressman with intent to injure or intimidate.

Questions

How strong is the evidence?

On the charge of assault, as described, would you say Jackson was:

A. Guilty?

B. Probably guilty?

C. Probably not guilty?

D. None of the above?

Amelia’s Statement

When she was questioned, Amelia stated that she lived in lodgings with two other students and it was her turn to buy food and cook the evening meal. She had bought six eggs to they could have two each. She always bought eggs at a market stall, where they were sold singly. It was cheaper than buying ten. And she took her own cardboard container to that they would not break.

Stallholder’s Statement

The owner of the stall where Amelia claimed to have bought the eggs stated that he did not recognize her when shown a photograph of her. But he did make the following statement:

“A lot of the students buy their eggs loose. If they want a box they have to buy ten. I sell loads of eggs that way every day.”

Flatmate’s StatementsThe two students with whom Amelia Jackson shared an apartment were questioned separately, and asked the same three questions. Both gave the same answers:

Q: “Whose turn was it to cook that day?”

A: “Amelia’s.”

Q: “Do you know where Amelia was going when she left the flat that day?”

A: “Shopping. Then to the university.”

Q: “Was she planning to attend the demonstration?”

A: “She didn’t mention it.”

Eyewitness Account

58-year old Rajinder Choudhury, a retired headteacher, picked Amelia Jackson out of a police line-up. He said:

“She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in the crowd, right where the stuff all came from. She jumped up and down, and did a high five with the kid next to her. They were loving it. Then she ducked down and picked something up. The crowd ruched forward then and I lost sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested, and saw her face close up. It was her all right. Later I heard the police were asking for witnesses, so I came forward.”

Is Amelia’s story plausible or far-fetched?

Is Amelia’s story corroborated by any of the other evidence, and if so, how strongly?

Is Amelia’s story challenged by any of the other evidence?