Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

146 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Discuss how strong this evidence is. On the

charge of assault, as described, would you

say Jackson was:

A guilty?

B probably guilty?

C probably not guilty?

D none of the above?

Activity

Commentary

The evidence available is entirely of the kind

we call circumstantial. However, as

circumstantial evidence goes, it looks fairly

damaging. There is no direct evidence that

Amelia Jackson did anything more than

attend the demo and express her feelings. No

one reports seeing her throw anything. But

together with that is the fact that she had

bought some eggs, and some appeared to be

missing from her bag. There is therefore an

accumulation of evidence. Firstly, she was

present at the scene; secondly, she was actively

demonstrating. Thirdly, eggs were among the

objects thrown at the congressman; and

fourthly – the nearest item to a ‘smoking

gun’ – there were empty compartments in the

egg box she was carrying. Do these corroborate

each other sufficiently to answer the question

above with A, B or C?

Not strictly. B is the nearest one could come

to incriminating Ms Jackson, but D is the

safest answer. Clearly there is insufficient

evidence for A: guilt would require evidence

that put the verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

However difficult it may seem to explain away

the empty places in the egg box, it is not

impossible that it had nothing to do with the

assault on the congressman. Plenty of other

people were throwing things: Amelia Jackson

may just have gone there to protest, angrily

perhaps, but not violently.

On the other hand it is very plausible, given

the circumstantial evidence, that Jackson was

corroborate each other, and together provide

overwhelming evidence of guilt. In fact, the

smoking gun would then be virtual proof of

guilt; the other evidence – without the

smoking gun – would be very much weaker.

For that reason the expression ‘smoking gun’

has come to be a metaphor for evidence which

would finally settle a case. An investigation

may be getting nowhere through lack of

conclusive evidence, until the so-called

‘smoking gun’ turns up in the form of an

incriminating email, or revealing photograph,

or something of the kind. On its own it would

not be proof of the desired conclusion; but on

top of other corroborating facts it removes any

lingering doubt.

The student demo

Here is a fictional scenario which will

illustrate some of the concepts that we are

considering.

An unpopular congressman, visiting a

university, was greeted by a large student

demonstration. As he was stepping out of his

car a raw egg thrown from the midst of the

crowd struck him on the side of the head and

broke, followed by a second and third. Soon

the politician was cowering under a hail of

missiles. As the crowd surged forward, he was

helped back into the car by security officers

and driven away.

A 20-year-old sociology student, Amelia

Jackson, was arrested soon afterwards. She

had been seen in the crowd, and was caught

on surveillance cameras shouting angrily and

holding a large placard on a pole.

Jackson was wearing a backpack containing

some provisions she said she had bought in

the market that morning. Among them was a

cardboard egg box with spaces for ten eggs,

but with only six eggs in it. She was taken into

custody for questioning and later charged with

assault, on the grounds that she had thrown

one or more objects at the congressman with

intent to injure or intimidate.