Do not be concerned by its appearance of complexity. It is a clear, manageable system of notation. The best understanding of this method can be obtained from briefly discussing it from three perspectives: 1 The original Wigmore Chart Method dating from 1913. 2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method, from the mid-1980s. 3 Use of the modified method in this book as an aid for understanding argument construction. This will give a firm understanding of the discussions above through a practical demonstration. This discussion will then be followed by a practical demonstration of the modified Chart Method (changed slightly for our use) looking at the fictional criminal case of R v Mary. This is a demonstration devised to continue the development of argumentative skills already discussed in this chapter. A second case, R v Jack, is provided at the end of the chapter to allow students to try out their developing skills by analysing and charting a new case and building an argument. 7.10.1 The original Wigmore Chart Method John Wigmore wanted to restore an imbalance in the approach to evidence to be used in the trial. He first unveiled his views in an article published in the Illinois Law Review in 1913. He was concerned with issues surrounding the law of evidence. The law of evidence, as it is normally considered in university courses and in practice, is particularly concerned with the what type of evidence is admissible in court to prove the case of the parties. It is also concerned with the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that allowable evidence is not rendered inadmissible due to procedural and avoidable mistakes by those dealing with it before it reaches the court room. (This covers the field of forensic science as well as witness testimony.) Wigmore, however, believed that while the admissibility of evidence and the following of procedures are important aspects of the law relating to evidence, there was another more important area that had been completely ignored. This was the aspect of proof itself. What is the effect of the admissible evidence? How does it build to a finding of case proved for or against one party? Can it be said that there is a science of proof? Here of course issues relating to evidence and the construction of argument begin to merge. Wigmore sees proof in terms of the proving of points in argument persuading judges and juries of the outcome of a case. He argued:

DOI link for Do not be concerned by its appearance of complexity. It is a clear, manageable system of notation. The best understanding of this method can be obtained from briefly discussing it from three perspectives: 1 The original Wigmore Chart Method dating from 1913. 2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method, from the mid-1980s. 3 Use of the modified method in this book as an aid for understanding argument construction. This will give a firm understanding of the discussions above through a practical demonstration. This discussion will then be followed by a practical demonstration of the modified Chart Method (changed slightly for our use) looking at the fictional criminal case of R v Mary. This is a demonstration devised to continue the development of argumentative skills already discussed in this chapter. A second case, R v Jack, is provided at the end of the chapter to allow students to try out their developing skills by analysing and charting a new case and building an argument. 7.10.1 The original Wigmore Chart Method John Wigmore wanted to restore an imbalance in the approach to evidence to be used in the trial. He first unveiled his views in an article published in the Illinois Law Review in 1913. He was concerned with issues surrounding the law of evidence. The law of evidence, as it is normally considered in university courses and in practice, is particularly concerned with the what type of evidence is admissible in court to prove the case of the parties. It is also concerned with the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that allowable evidence is not rendered inadmissible due to procedural and avoidable mistakes by those dealing with it before it reaches the court room. (This covers the field of forensic science as well as witness testimony.) Wigmore, however, believed that while the admissibility of evidence and the following of procedures are important aspects of the law relating to evidence, there was another more important area that had been completely ignored. This was the aspect of proof itself. What is the effect of the admissible evidence? How does it build to a finding of case proved for or against one party? Can it be said that there is a science of proof? Here of course issues relating to evidence and the construction of argument begin to merge. Wigmore sees proof in terms of the proving of points in argument persuading judges and juries of the outcome of a case. He argued:

Do not be concerned by its appearance of complexity. It is a clear, manageable system of notation. The best understanding of this method can be obtained from briefly discussing it from three perspectives: 1 The original Wigmore Chart Method dating from 1913. 2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method, from the mid-1980s. 3 Use of the modified method in this book as an aid for understanding argument construction. This will give a firm understanding of the discussions above through a practical demonstration. This discussion will then be followed by a practical demonstration of the modified Chart Method (changed slightly for our use) looking at the fictional criminal case of R v Mary. This is a demonstration devised to continue the development of argumentative skills already discussed in this chapter. A second case, R v Jack, is provided at the end of the chapter to allow students to try out their developing skills by analysing and charting a new case and building an argument. 7.10.1 The original Wigmore Chart Method John Wigmore wanted to restore an imbalance in the approach to evidence to be used in the trial. He first unveiled his views in an article published in the Illinois Law Review in 1913. He was concerned with issues surrounding the law of evidence. The law of evidence, as it is normally considered in university courses and in practice, is particularly concerned with the what type of evidence is admissible in court to prove the case of the parties. It is also concerned with the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that allowable evidence is not rendered inadmissible due to procedural and avoidable mistakes by those dealing with it before it reaches the court room. (This covers the field of forensic science as well as witness testimony.) Wigmore, however, believed that while the admissibility of evidence and the following of procedures are important aspects of the law relating to evidence, there was another more important area that had been completely ignored. This was the aspect of proof itself. What is the effect of the admissible evidence? How does it build to a finding of case proved for or against one party? Can it be said that there is a science of proof? Here of course issues relating to evidence and the construction of argument begin to merge. Wigmore sees proof in terms of the proving of points in argument persuading judges and juries of the outcome of a case. He argued: