Though the major determinant of trial decisions is the evidence, few studies have examined how evidence is integrated into a holistic decision about the defendant. This requires covarying several values of different sorts of evidence, resulting in multiple hypothetical defendants. Multiple defendants were judged by the vehicle of murder mysteries. Suspects were described by various combinations of motive and ability, each evidence type varying in incrimination level. Subjects evaluated probability of guilt given the two elements (holistic judgments), and then retrospectively reported the guilt value of each separate piece of evidence and its importance to their prior suspect evaluation. Holistic judgments were an additive function of clues, but decomposed judgments and reports of clue importance reflected a more complex strategy. Three main conclusions were discussed: (a) people are more affected by motives than abilities, (b) people use simpler strategies in combining evidence than they claim, and (c) retrospective reports inaccurately describe their implicit strategies in holistic judgments.