Department header
Bewildering Stories

What a Coincidence...

by Gary Inbinder

“What I’m saying is that these are mere coincidences. It’s what a lawyer would call circumstantial evidence. It’s not proof.” — “Number Eleven

That’s completely wrong. For example, Jane Doe has been killed by a bullet through the heart. There are no witnesses except for the person who shot her (direct evidence). The police examine the crime scene and find the following:

That is all circumstantial (indirect) evidence and would be admissible, since it is relevant and tends to prove that Jon killed Jane.

Meanwhile, on another front:

And so forth and so on.

Those are mere coincidences that have nothing to do with the case in point. Crime stories and the law normally deal with cause and effect; superstition is something else entirely.

Copyright © 2007 by Gary Inbinder

Home Page