4 ms·

This 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 ev

This 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 ago
All evidence except actual witness testimony is circumstantial.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  That's not even close to true.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    https://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 ago
  Isn't witness testimony notoriously unreliable? I trust nobody's memory, including my own.
sjy 6y ago
What 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
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purely https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purely > wholly, exclusively. a selection based purely on merit --- > A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence because you know ... knowing that a person's phone was in the vicinity at a specific time in a specific area is as strong as a video of person A killing person B. Such a common "misconception". Furthermore, we know that people get wrongly convicted. We know this because they get exonerated down the road. It's also a tautology. "It's ok to use circumstantial evidence to get convictions because the legal system currently uses circumstantial evidence to get convictions". Some of us don't want to go to jail because we happened to be driving through the wrong place at the wrong time.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    > a video of person A killing person B Usually this would be circumstantial evidence because you have to infer it was actually person A and B in the video, and it actually depicted the murder. There could be alternative explanations, such as "that was my twin" or "we were performing a murder on stage". Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
    - tantalor 6y ago

tantalor 6y ago

All evidence except actual witness testimony is circumstantial.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
That's not even close to true.
- tantalor 6y ago
  https://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 ago
Isn't witness testimony notoriously unreliable? I trust nobody's memory, including my own.

sjy 6y ago

What 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

RandoHolmes 6y ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purely https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purely > wholly, exclusively. a selection based purely on merit --- > A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence because you know ... knowing that a person's phone was in the vicinity at a specific time in a specific area is as strong as a video of person A killing person B. Such a common "misconception". Furthermore, we know that people get wrongly convicted. We know this because they get exonerated down the road. It's also a tautology. "It's ok to use circumstantial evidence to get convictions because the legal system currently uses circumstantial evidence to get convictions". Some of us don't want to go to jail because we happened to be driving through the wrong place at the wrong time.
- tantalor 6y ago
  > a video of person A killing person B Usually this would be circumstantial evidence because you have to infer it was actually person A and B in the video, and it actually depicted the murder. There could be alternative explanations, such as "that was my twin" or "we were performing a murder on stage". Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
  - tantalor 6y ago