4.3 Evidence 147
guilty as charged. Because of that, C would be
a strange inference to make. She is no more
likely to be innocent than she is to be guilty.
Additional evidence
Amelia’s statement
When she was questioned, Amelia stated that
she lived in lodgings with two other students
and it was her turn to buy food and cook the
evening meal. She had bought six eggs so they
could have two each. She always bought eggs
at a market stall, where they were sold singly. It
was cheaper than buying ten. And she took
her own cardboard container so that they
would not break.
Stallholder’s statement
The owner of the stall where Amelia claimed
to have bought the eggs stated that he did not
recognise her when shown a photograph of
her. But he did make the following statement:
‘A lot of the students buy their eggs loose. If
they want a box they have to buy ten. I sell
loads of eggs that way every day.’Flatmates’ statements
The two students with whom Amelia Jackson
shared an apartment were questioned
separately, and asked the same three
questions. Both gave the same answers:
Q: ‘Whose turn was it to cook that day?’
A: ‘Amelia’s.’
Q: ‘Do you know where Amelia was going
when she left the apartment that day?’
A: ‘Shopping. Then to the university.’
Q: ‘Was she planning to attend the
demonstration?’
A: ‘She didn’t mention it.’Eyewitness account
58-year-old Rajinder Choudhury, a retired
headteacher, picked Amelia Jackson out of a
police line-up.* He said:
‘She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in
the crowd, right where the stuff all came from.She jumped up and down, and did a high five
with the kid next to her. They were loving it.
Then she ducked down and picked something
up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost
sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested,
and saw her face close up. It was her all right.
Later I heard the police were asking for
witnesses, so I came forward.’
* This is also known as an ‘identification
parade’: a number of people form a line and
the witness points out the one he or she
claims to have seen. If the suspect is identified
in this way, that is a form of direct evidence.Discuss whether Amelia’s story is plausible
(or is it far-fetched?). Is it corroborated by any
of the other evidence and, if so, how
strongly? Is it seriously challenged by any of
the other evidence?Activity
Commentary
It is a reasonably plausible story. Anyone who
has been a student, or knows students, would
agree that most of them tend to shop as
economically as they can, and if eggs can be
got more cheaply by taking a container and
buying them loose that makes sense. What is
more, if there are only three residents in the
flat (or apartment) then it also makes perfect
sense to buy multiples of three, and not ten.
This does not prove Amelia was innocent, but
it goes some way towards tipping the balance
back in her favour.
What is more, there is considerable
corroboration from both the stallholder and
the other students with whom she shares the
flat. Of course the flatmates might be
protecting her by answering as they do. They
were questioned separately, so the fact that they
gave exactly the same answers could mean they
were telling the truth. But it could also mean
they had prepared what they would say. As far
as the stallholder is concerned, he has no