What do relevant direct and circumstantial evidence both aim to establish?

Both relevant direct and circumstantial evidence serve the purpose of establishing facts that support the case presented. Direct evidence provides straightforward proof of a fact, such as a witness testifying to having seen an event occur, while circumstantial evidence allows for inference and reasoning to connect various pieces of evidence to a conclusion about the situation. Together, they help create a complete picture for the court, assisting in establishing the context or details that support the claims made in a legal situation.

In contrast, the other options do not encapsulate the primary role of evidence in legal contexts. Proof of a witness's credibility is important but is a separate consideration from what the evidence itself aims to establish within a case. The inevitability of a conclusion suggests a certainty that is not the objective of either direct or circumstantial evidence, as legal outcomes can be uncertain and often require persuasive argumentation. As for the necessity of expert testimony, while it can be important in certain cases, it is not inherently linked to the role of direct or circumstantial evidence in establishing facts.