1. The Great Diamond Heist Evidence, Warrants, and Conclusions

2. EvidenceWarrantsConclusions There were footprints from the small car to the limo and then to where the man is being questioned by police. 1. The footprints probably belong to the man. If footprints go from a place a person was known to be to another obvious place (s)he would likely have gone and then to the person, (s)he probably made the footprints. This is especially true when the reason the person would have been at those two locations did not exist for other people. For example, the entrance to the school and the place where the parking lot meets the cement in front of the school would be more likely to have been the route for many more people than an accident in the middle of nowhere.

3. There were dog prints next to the man’s footprints from the small car to the limo, but then the dog footprints take off in another direction. 2. The dog was probably with the man until they reached the limo. Then they separated. There is a leash on the ground next to the limo where the dog and human footprints separate. Conclusion 2 (The dog was probably with the man until they reached the limo. Then they separated.) 3. The dog was probably wearing the leash until they got to the limo. Then the dog got off the leash and left. The small car was parked perpendicularly to the road, across it, and there were tire marks from the grass to where the car was parked. 4. Prior to the accident, the small car was probably parked on the road from the side of the road, not driving on the road. EvidenceWarrants Conclusions If a leash is found at the place that a dog and person were walking together and then they got separated, the dog was probably wearing the leash before the separation. If dog prints go next to a person’s footprints, it’s probably because the dog was with the person. If there are tire marks from the side of the road next to where a car is parked on the road, the car must probably have come from the side of the road to the road.

4. The footprints from the small car to the limo go first way out into the grass, then to the limo. 5. The man had probably already left his car with his dog at the time of the crash. Conclusion 4 (Prior to the accident, the small car was probably parked on the road from the side of the road, not driving on the road.) Conclusion 5 (The man had already left his car with his dog at the time of the crash.) 6. The man probably planned the crash. There are no footprints except for those we’ve decided belong to the man and his dog (conclusions 1 and 2) and those of the woman. 7. The woman, the man, and his dog were probably the only ones there. EvidenceWarrants Conclusions If a person is involved in a crash and they leave their own car, they usually go immediately from their own car to another car involved in the crash. If a person parks a car in the middle of the road and then leaves the car to walk away from the road (s)he is probably planning a crash. If the ground is such that someone leaves footprints, then anyone else there at the same time would probably also leave footprints.

5. The woman claims she had a large diamond, but now the diamond is missing. 8. The diamond is missing. Conclusion 8 (The diamond is missing.) The police didn’t find the diamond during their search. 9. The diamond was stolen. Conclusion 7 (The woman, the man, and his dog were probably the only ones there.) 10. The man probably stole the diamond. Conclusion 6. (The man probably planned the crash.) Conclusion 10 (The man probably stole the diamond) 11. The man probably planned the crash so that he could steal the diamond. Evidence Warrants Conclusions If a person claims something has gone missing, it probably did. If something is missing, it’s either lost or stolen. If something were just lost, police would find it during a search. If only two other living beings have been there, and something is stolen, it is probably one of them who stole it. Dogs do not usually steal jewelry. People don’t plan crashes unless they have something to gain by it (such as stealing a diamond).

6. Conclusion 10 (The man probably stole the diamond). The police have searched the area (presumably including the man and his car), and they didn’t find the diamond. 12. The man probably doesn’t still have the diamond. Conclusion 10 (The man probably stole the diamond.) Conclusion 12 (The man doesn’t still have the diamond.) 13. The man stole the diamond and then sent it away somehow. Conclusion 13 (The man stole the diamond and then sent it away somehow.) Conclusion 7 (The woman, the man, and his dog were probably the only ones there.) 14. The man sent the diamond with the dog. Evidence WarrantsConclusions If a thief had a diamond, and he was searched by the police, the police would probably have found it. If a thief steals something but doesn’t have it when the police come, the thief has probably found a way to send the item away. If there only seems to be one way to send something away, and the thing was sent away, that’s the way it was sent away.

7. Which of these would be important to make our case? Do we take some of them for granted? Are there some that would be useful for making it seem more likely or proving that it was planned ahead or for prosecuting him for more than stealing but not necessary to prove that the man PROBABLY stole it and gave it to the dog?

8. The ones I found useful for other things but not necessarily important to prove the dog has it (or so obvious it would often be taken for granted) are in brown. There are other things that we found evidence for that I didn’t include because I found them irrelevant (such as the fact that the woman must have been unconscious – I believe that if she’s unaware of what happened, the fact that she was unconscious is extraneous information.). You may feel different about them. Use your own judgment. If you’re making a slightly different point, you might need slightly different information. If you have questions about the effectiveness, ask.