Albert Einstein famously said,
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother” [and get her to understand it, too.]
So, I'm going to try to explain the difference between "facts" and "evidence" to see if I understand it myself.
Evidence is presented in court to determine what the facts are, i.e., evidence is presented to let a jury decide if it is "a proven fact" that the defendant committed the crime for which he/she is accused.
Another
source expresses this differently:
"Fact is a truth that can
be proven. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by
someone. It has to be accepted only on belief. There cannot be truth
in all evidences. This is the main difference between facts and
evidence."
The copy of "
The People's Law Dictionary" in my personal library contains these definitions:
FACT: n. an actual thing or happening, which must be proved at trial by presentation of evidence and which is evaluated by the finder or fact (a jury in a jury trial, or by the judge if he/she sits without a jury).
EVIDENCE: n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before the trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact.
So, it is totally
absurd to say there is "no evidence" showing that Dr. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001. In the
Amerithrax Investigative Summary report, the Department of Justice presented 92 pages summarizing the
evidence against Dr. Ivins. And they released thousands of pages of supplemental information.
A naysayer could argue that he or she does not
accept or believe the evidence, and therefore, as far as they are concerned, it is not a
proven fact that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer. But, they cannot logically say there is "no evidence" showing Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.
In court the prosecutor would
present the evidence that Dr. Ivins had means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. The prosecutor would establish "as a fact" that Ivins had means, motive and opportunity. And the prosecutor would ask the jury to conclude and confirm the fact that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
On the Internet, an Anthrax Truther can present "evidence" showing that his or her favorite suspect was actually the real anthrax killer.
However, as it says above (and below),
"There cannot be truth
in all evidences. This is the main difference between facts and
evidence."
One Anthrax Truther on this blog presents "
evidence" arguing that "linguistics" within the anthrax documents show that his unnamed "suspect" is the anthrax killer. He indicates that
someday he
may present "evidence" showing that his "suspect" had means, motive and opportunity. But, for now, all he is willing to discuss is the "linguistics" in the documents. As I see it, his linguistics "evidence" is easily challenged and disputed, so there is no "truth" in his "evidence." It's something only he sees.
Another Anthrax Truther
argues that a 2003 news report saying that Adnan el-Shukrijumah had gone to the United States via Mexico is "evidence" that el-Shukrijumah mailed the anthrax letters. As further "evidence," he cites
another news story which said el-Shukrijumah entered the U.S. "some time after September 1, 2001" as evidence that el-Shukrijumah was in New Jersey in September and October of 2001 mailing the anthrax letters. As I see it, his "evidence" is so vague and lacking in detail that is no way to find any "truth" in his "evidence." "The truth" is something only he sees in his "evidence."
The Department of Justice's case against Dr. Ivins, on the other hand, provides excellent evidence which shows that Ivins had means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime, plus they can have FBI agents testify that all other likely suspects can be eliminated for lack of means, motive and/or opportunity.
Unlike the two Anthrax Truthers mentioned above, the DOJ can show solid evidence to establish
as a fact that Ivins had the
means to commit the crime. The DOJ can present scientists who can explain that they personally created powders
identical to the attack powders using the same equipment Ivins had available in his lab. The DOJ can also show that Ivins had the
opportunity to commit the crime. To establish that as a fact, they can present documents, time logs and testimony showing that Ivins had no alibi for the times when the mailings were done. And the DOJ can show that Dr. Ivins had
motive for committing the crime: Though his emails and the testimony of witnesses, they can establish as a fact that: (1) Dr. Ivins’s life’s work appeared destined for failure, absent an unexpected event. (2) Dr. Ivins was being subjected to increasing public criticism for his work. (3) Dr. Ivins was feeling abandoned in his personal life. A jury could reasonably conclude that Ivins expected the anthrax mailings to make him and his work
important again.
The jury would watch and listen to the evidence being presented. They would then listen and watch the defense present evidence for their side of the argument. When done, the jury would decide, based upon all the evidence presented to them, if the case against Dr. Ivins was proven or not proven. If they decided it was proven, it would become a "fact" that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Others can disagree with the "fact" that Ivins did it, but their disagreements would be of no value unless and until they could somehow present
better evidence showing someone else did it.
That's my explanation of the difference between "facts" and "evidence."
Below are some sources I used in writing the comment above.
----------------------------------------
Facts and evidence are two words that are often used incorrectly.
Even though they are often used interchangeably, they have entirely
different meanings. A fact is something that can be proven but evidence
is something that someone tells you or objects that can point to the
facts. Evidence can be accepted only as a belief that something is a
fact and in all cases this is not true.
There are two types of evidence –
factual evidence and documented evidence.
In a trial, the court always relies on the documented evidence because
facts are needed to prove that it is not true.
However, it is very easy
to damage or destroy evidence. Therefore there is not a lot of strength
in evidence and it is difficult to authenticate it. In contrast to
evidence, a fact can be proven by any means and this is one of the main
differences between the two words.
A
fact cannot be destroyed or damaged. This is true of
scientific facts that have been proven by multiple experiments. No
matter how much you change the variables, the conclusion is fact. Facts
are based on evidence, but
evidence does not necessarily have
to be true. It is also considered to be a reality about which a large
number of people agree. Facts cannot be disputed.
Information that proves to be helpful in forming a conclusion is
termed evidence, but it has to be either true or false. Evidence can be
disputed, which is why it is presented in court. The lawyers for both
sides present arguments and witnesses to prove or disprove the evidence
that has been collected for the case.
It is the evidence that starts an investigation and fact develops from the conclusion of the investigation.
Click
HERE for the source.
-------------------------------------
Facts and Evidence are two legal terms
that are used with difference. They are generally understood as one and
the same thing to an untrained litigant, but strictly speaking they are
different.
Fact is a truth that can
be proven. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by
someone. It has to be accepted only on belief. There cannot be truth
in all evidences. This is the main difference between facts and
evidence.
Evidence is generally of
two types, namely, documental evidence and factual evidence. The
decision of the court is always based on documental evidence. You need
to have factual evidence to disprove it.
On
the main difference between facts and evidence is that evidence can be
easily destroyed. This is because of the fact that evidence lacks
strength and cannot be proved authentically. On the other hand a fact
can be proved by all means. In fact the proven status has made the fact
different from evidence.
On the
other hand a fact cannot be destroyed at all for that matter.
Scientific facts are all proved and hence can never be destroyed by any
means. This is mainly due to the fact that fact is characterized by
truth whereas evidence is characterized by falsehood.
Evidence
is information helpful in forming judgment or a conclusion. Remember
it is only information that can be either true or false. On the other
hand a fact is a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a
substantial strength of people.
Another
important difference between facts and evidence is that facts cannot be
disputed. On the other hand evidence can be disputed in the court. It
all depends on the skill of the lawyer to dispute the evidence produced
in the court. Fact is arrived at after investigation or experiment.
Evidence begins an investigation.
Click
HERE for the source.
--------------------------------------------------------
Click
HERE for the source.
Ed