Can we trust evidence?

evidence is something that proves a point; isn't it?

In my opinion, evidence is not one little thing that could suggest that somebody was murdered, or that he/she commited the crime. In my opinion, evidence is the start of a long chain of evidence that strongly without question tells someone exaactly what happened. No 'if's or 'maybe's, solid and concrete proof.

For example, if the police pick up a lighter at a crime scene, is that proof? I think it is. But not because it possibly belonged to the suspect, because there would be DNA samples on the lighter, which would lead directly to the suspect; but that still wouldn't be evidence; it would be evidence if a witness saw the suspect use and hold that lighter before/after the crime was commited. Even then, the witness could still be lying, so what else could make it solid and concrete evidence? What about CCTV footage, a past photo of the suspect with that lighter... Now that, in my opinion, is evidence.

To conclude, I think "evidence" is a trustworthy source to find out the crime commiter, but only if there is evidence for the evidence. What do you think?

Comments (1)

You must be logged in to post a comment