E66| Circumstantial evidence, conjecture & common-sense. Is guilt the only reasonable conclusion?
Description
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses circumstantial evidence and alternate theories to guilt that may inferentially arise, even without an accused testifying. Just when does an inference cross the line from the speculative to the rational? Does common sense have anything to do with it? Or will any conceivable hypothetical or imaginative conclusion inconsistent with guilt suffice in raising a reasonable doubt? And how can understanding the inference drawing process prompt you to be a better investigator?
Examples referenced — R. v. Dautruche, 2024 ONCA 426, R. v. Williams-Senior, 2024 ONCA 175, R. v. MacAdam 2024 ONCA 13, R. v. Pyne, 2023 ONCA 714.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
United States
