Circumstantial Evidence

Principal fact to be proved:

“Eamon deValera acted on behalf of the English.”

Books, movies and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime but this view is incorrect. A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid and less important than direct evidence (eyewitnesses, etc). 

Surprisingly, circumstantial evidence is more difficult to suppress or fabricate than direct evidence and can be a far more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict. Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is in fact, an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence.

The fact is most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence that links the criminal to the crime as direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person of a crime. Eyewitness type evidence (I saw Frankie shoot Johnny) is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted the important role played by circumstantial evidence, “that circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence.” [Holland v.United States, 348US, 121, 75S. Ct.127, 99 L, Ed. 150, (1954)].

In a criminal case, it is necessary to prove guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ while in a civil case, it merely requires a ‘preponderance of evidence’ for a guilty verdict.

Circumstantial evidence in the case of the Irish President consists of a series of specific facts demonstrating that every major decision by deValera benefitted England to the detriment of Ireland. When considered together, these decisions can be used to infer a conclusion as to whether deValera did in fact act on behalf of England.

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of the accused by establishing guilt or innocence through reasoning—what would a reasonable person of average intelligence conclude after hearing the series of facts relative to deValera’s conduct?

Circumstantial evidence is a logical principle of deduction in which a reasonable person of average intelligence ascertains from a known series of facts the specific proposition that deValera aided and abetted the English. Throughout this work, the author cites a chain of events outlining deValera’s work on behalf of England with disastrous results to Ireland.

In deValera’s case, this chain of events begins with his lying as to his having been tried, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved at the last moment for his part in the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin to his “condolence” call on the German embassy over the death of Adolph Hitler in 1945. DeValera’s initial motive was the preservation of his life and thereafter, the retention of political power throughout his decades in office.

In 1936, deValera proposed a historical commission of enquiry be convened in order for an independent authoritative examination of the sequence of events leading up to the Treaty and start of the civil war. In the interest of justice, historical accuracy and in accordance with deValera’s wishes, the former Irish President must be subjected to a posthumous trial on charges of treason, fraud, theft of Government funds, murder and conspiracy to murder.

Our Projects

About Us