All without the physician’s testimony. Physician’s testimony was

All requirements as circumstantial evidence are to make
the existence of the fact more probable than it would be without the evidence. Here, a
physician testified that the old man died naturally, and there were no
bruises or marks. This evidence showed
that “somewhere between the fact and K’s testimony there was a person who not a
true speaker.” there must be an open and visible connection between
the fact under inquiry and the evidence. K’s lawyer argues that Physician’s testimony is irrelevant since the issue is not whether
the story 0f D’s attacking the old man is true, but whether D had in fact heard
the story. However, K could not or would
not identify his informant. The physician’s testimony had a tendency to make K’s
claim of what he heard less likely to be true than it would be without the physician’s
testimony. Physician’s testimony was openly and visibly connected to the
falsity of K’s statement. If K’s falsity was a wall, Physician’s testimony
would be a valid brick. Thus, the evidence was relevant to the truth of K’s
testimony.