Introduction to Criminal

Investigation: Processes,
Practices and Thinking

Rod Gehl and Darryl Plecas

Direct Evidence
Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without interpretation of
circumstances. (Justice Department Canada, 2017). It is any evidence that can show the court
that something occurred without the need for the judge to make inferences or assumptions to
reach a conclusion. An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would be able to provide
direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the accused committing a crime or a
statement of confession from the accused admitting to the crime could also be considered direct
evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct examination, which
is the initial examination and questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that
witness. And, although each witness who provides evidence could, in theory, be providing direct
testimony of their own knowledge and experiences, that evidence is often not direct evidence of
the offence itself.
Circumstantial Evidence
Indirect evidence, also called circumstantial evidence, is all other evidence, such as the
fingerprint of an accused found at the crime scene. Indirect evidence does not by itself prove the
offence, but through interpretation of the circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence
may contribute to a body of evidence that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Justice
Department Canada, 2017). Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical
conclusion can sometimes become the evidence the court uses in reaching belief beyond a
reasonable doubt to convict an accused. It requires assumptions and logical inferences to be
made by the court to attribute meaning to the evidence.

“When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain
that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in
criminal as in civil cases.” (MacDonell, 1820)

Circumstantial evidence demonstrates the spatial relationships between suspects, victims,

timelines, and the criminal event. These spatial relationships can sometimes demonstrate that an
accused person had a combination of intent, motive, opportunity, and/or the means to commit the
offence, which are all meaningful features of criminal conduct.

Circumstantial evidence of intent can sometimes be shown through indirect evidence of a

suspect planning to commit the offence, and/or planning to escape and dispose of evidence after
the offence. A pre-crime statement about the plan could demonstrate both intent and motive,
such as, “I really need some money. I’m going to rob that bank tomorrow.”

Circumstantial evidence of conflict, vengeance, financial gain from the commission of the
offence can also become evidence of motive.

Circumstantial evidence of opportunity can be illustrated by showing a suspect had access to a

victim or a crime scene at the time of the criminal event, and this access provided opportunity to
commit the crime.

Circumstantial evidence of means can sometimes be demonstrated by showing the suspect

had the physical capabilities and/or the tools or weapons to commit the offence.

Presenting this kind of circumstantial evidence can assist the court in confirming assumptions
and inferences to reach conclusions assigning probative value to connections between the
accused and a person or a place and the physical evidence. These circumstantial connections can
create the essential links between a suspect and the crime.

There are many ways of making linkages to demonstrate circumstantial connections. These
range from forensic analysis of fingerprints or DNA that connect an accused to the crime scene
or victim, to witness evidence describing criminal conduct on the part of an accused before,
during, or after the offence. The possibilities and variations of when or how circumstantial
evidence will emerge are endless. It falls upon the investigator to consider the big picture of all
the evidence and then analytically develop theories of how events may have happened. Once a
reasonable theory has been formed, evidence of circumstantial connections can be validated
through further investigation and analysis of physical exhibits to connect a suspect to the crime.