4 ms·
At the time the terms likely did not have statistically significant search volume. I'm not going to say he was the only one, but the other three might have been
by mike_d 6y ago
At the time the terms likely did not have statistically significant search volume. I'm not going to say he was the only one, but the other three might have been people who then corrected their search from "dcleaks" to "dc voltage leak" or something.
If you search for "[government agency] mailing address" three days before they receive anthrax in the mail, it isn't a slam dunk case. But if it was also mailed from your zip code, you had placed 6 phone calls to that agency in the prior month, etc. it makes you a pretty damn good candidate.
- donmcronald 6y agoWhat was the search volume? That’s relevant and they should have to list it.
- mike_d 6y agoI don't know. But everything the FBI got from Google was also given to the defense. If it was a popular set of terms, the defense would have raised that argument.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoIt wouldn't be popular if they also filtered it to a suspect's geoip range or other qualifiers.
- jessaustin 6y agohttps://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=guccifer https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... There has been some interest throughout the last five years. The first big spike was the first week of May, 2016. However, there were smaller peaks in March and April.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoThis is known as circumstantial evidence and I think part of what scares the shit out of people is seeing posts like yours arguing that purely circumstantial evidence should be used in this way. Imagine being the unibombers neighbor and getting arrested for the crimes because you searched for the same things he did.
- tantalor 6y agoAll evidence except actual witness testimony is circumstantial.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoThat's not even close to true.
- tantalor 6y agohttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource... The heart of the case is the presentation of evidence. There are two types of evidence -- direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence usually is that which speaks for itself: eyewitness accounts, a confession, or a weapon. Circumstantial evidence usually is that which suggests a fact by implication or inference: the appearance of the scene of a crime, testimony that suggests a connection or link with a crime, physical evidence that suggests criminal activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence In direct evidence, a witness relates what they directly experienced. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true. https://youtu.be/4xGluGlQgdA?t=310 https://youtu.be/4xGluGlQgdA?t=310 Direct evidence, often in the form of eyewitness testimony, can be extraordinarily weak. On the contrary, DNA evidence, for example, is 100% circumstantial.
- bigyikes 6y agoIsn't witness testimony notoriously unreliable? I trust nobody's memory, including my own.
- sjy 6y agoWhat do you mean by “purely” circumstantial evidence? “A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence ... Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence