Discuss (c) prima facie vs. conclusive

The classification's base: whether the evidence proves the fact in issue itself or proves it through inference. Direct evidence — proves the fact in issue without any intervening inference: the eyewitness who saw the blow struck (the fact: X struck Y); the document signed before the attesting witnesses (the fact: the deed was executed). Its strength: the short inferential chain; its weakness: the credibility question (was the witness there? is the witness honest?) — the directness is only as good as the witness. Circumstantial evidence — proves facts from which the issue is inferred: the threat (motive), the presence at the scene (opportunity), the fingerprints on the weapon, the blood on the clothes, the flight after the act (conduct). The chain's logic (the exam's craft): each link a proved fact; the inference drawn only when the chain is complete and each link points the same way; the classic standard — the circumstances must be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational explanation. The merits: often more reliable than the eyewitness (the fingerprint does not misremember); the conviction may lawfully rest on circumstantial evidence alone where the chain is tight. The relevant-irrelevant axis (the classification's threshold): only relevant facts are admissible at all (Unit 4's discipline) — the direct/circumstantial divide operates within the relevant.