9 ms·

Looking at the press release [1], it still feels relatively circumstantial to me. Not sure that we can deem the Zodiac Killer to be fully identified yet. It's

by mauz 5y ago

Looking at the press release [1], it still feels relatively circumstantial to me. Not sure that we can deem the Zodiac Killer to be fully identified yet. It's definitely not nearly as cut and dry as when they identified the Golden State killer. [1]: https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.114.250/g9q.07b.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Zodiac-Killer-Press-release-1-1.pdf https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.114.250/g9q.07b.myftpuplo...

bena 5y ago
Do you know what circumstantial means? It doesn't mean "weak". It means "pertaining to circumstances". Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. DNA is circumstantial evidence. Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. Trials are based on circumstantial evidence. Hans Reiser was arrested, tried, and convicted of murdering his wife based on nothing but circumstantial evidence that a murder even occurred. They didn't even have her body. If a lawyer would jump up and shout "Objection, evidence is circumstantial", the judge would look at them and say "Yeah, no shit, what's your actual objection?"
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Consult a dictionary, eg., > pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it. You are correct that within a technical legal context most evidence is circumstantial. But that isnt the only meaning of the word, and indeed, largely not what is meant.
  - bena 5y ago
    What they meant is wrong. I can consult Merriam Webster, which agrees with what I said. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20... Or Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence Or Cornell https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence Or basically any single law firm or courthouse https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/circumstantial-evidence/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/circumst... https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/circumstantial-evidence-vs-direct-evidence https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/circumst... https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumst... Yes, inferences must be made. But as a lot of those links mention, direct evidence (the other kind of evidence) is often worse as it's usually eyewitness accounts. Lazy television writers have done us all a disservice by repeated implication that circumstantial evidence isn't good enough.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial 1. belonging to, consisting in, or dependent on circumstances 2. pertinent but not essential : incidental The original comment used the word correctly. Because dictionaries describe how people actually speak, not prescribe rules on how to use words. That's why they get updated every so often as word usages change.
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        But this is a word that has a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning. It doesn’t make sense to apply the colloquial definition when a term is being used in the context of a technical discussion. In other words, the appropriate definition of a term of art is... circumstantial. ;)
      - parineum 5y ago
        > how people actually speak To counter that point, "circumstantial" has a legal meaning that does not change as easily.
        alpaca128 5y ago
        Yes. But this thread isn't a legal document and is mostly written by people that aren't lawyers. A lot of words have specific meanings, yet we don't complain and cite dictionary definitions when people use the word "or" as exclusive-or.
    - dctoedt 5y ago
      The Cornell Law dictionary that you cited is a good summary of what lawyers and judges are likely to think: Evidence that implies a person committed a crime, (for example, the person was seen running away from the crime scene). There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight. Compare to direct evidence.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Putting aside the very first paragraph ("What they meant is wrong"), this post makes some sound points. It is also the case that the alleged new evidence for Poste being the killer is, in fact, circumstantial with respect to the issue of who committed the murders in question. So, returning to that first paragraph, to establish whether what mauze meant is wrong, we must establish both that mauze meant something other than what was written, and that the intended meaning was wrong. I do not see any conclusive evidence as to what mause meant. Furthermore, bena's reply to mause suggests that the intended meaning was 'weak'. That strikes me as plausible, but as far as I can tell, it would not be an obviously wrong characterization of the new evidence.
- contravariant 5y ago
  Usually when a particular interpretation of a word renders it utterly meaningless then that interpretation is not the correct one. In particular circumstantial can mean 'pertaining to circumstance' or it can be one of several other meanings derived from the same root. One of which is its noun form "Something incidental to the main subject, but of less importance", which sounds like a more reasonable interpretation. Or it may even be one of those words that only has a particular meaning in a legal context.
  - bena 5y ago
    People glommed onto the idea of circumstantial meaning weak from police and legal procedurals. And since we are talking about evidence, we should be using it within the context of evidence. And in that context, some or all of the evidence being circumstantial has no bearing on whether or not it is good evidence. This isn't a matter of "other meanings [being] derived from the same root". There is no root. It's a misappropriation of a word from lazy television writers.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      > good evidence > literally hearsay
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        Hearsay evidence can be good evidence, too.
  - I_complete_me 5y ago
    I've been looking for an appropriate context to refer to a recently new-found word, to wit "polysemy". Is this it?
- sumosudo 5y ago
  Other than first-hand knowledge, all evidence is circumstantial. In response to all your detractors comments: looking up words in English dictionaries for law jargon is a bad idea, you will get yourself thrown in the dock. Blacks Law dictionary only. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The term in- cludes all evidence of indirect nature. Milligan v. State, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260, 263. It is direct evidence as to facts deposed to but indirect as to the factum probandum, Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 72 S.W.2d 269, 270; evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred. People v. Steele, 37 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200, 179 Misc. 587; Wolff v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., 282 Ky. 824, 140 S.W.2d 640, 645, 130 A.L.R. 682; Scott v. State, 57 Ga.App. 489, 195 S.E. 923, 924; inferences drawn from facts proved, Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 18 Ca1.2d 798, 117 P. 2d 841, 845; preponderance of probabilities, Hercules Pow- der Co., v. Nieratko, 113 N.J.L. 188, 173 A. 606, 610; pro- cess of decision by which court or jury may reason from circumstances known or proved, to establish by inference the principal fact, People v. Taddio, 292 N.Y. 488, 55 N.E. 2d 749, 750. It means that existence of principal facts is only inferred from circumstances. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Lonas, 255 Ky. 717, 75 S.W.2d 348, 350. When the existence of the principal fact is deduced from evidentiary by a process of probable reasoning, the evi- dence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres. 246; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial be- cause necessarily derived from or made up of circum- stances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive. Burrill. The proof of various facts or circumstances which usual- ly attend the main fact in dispute, and therefore tend to prove its existence, or to sustain, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. Or as otherwise defined, it consists in reasoning from facts which are known or proved to es- tablish such as are conjectured to exist. INDIRECT EVIDENCE. Is that which only tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining by their consistency the hypothesis claimed. It consists of both inferences and pre- sumptions. Lake County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 74 P. 212, 214.
- space_rock 5y ago
  People don't know how to judge evidence. So they think circumstantial evidence has no weight
polynomial 5y ago
This is exactly why I want to see more info about the cipher they solved (that and my innate interest in ciphers.) The claim is that when you remove all the letters of his full name, there is a 2nd message hidden there. This is exactly the sort of thing I would immensely like to get ahold of and apply some stochastic models to, in addition to just knowing more of the specifics. In any case, if they have truly deciphered a message that implicates him, it would be significantly more than circumstantial. What really pains me is the paucity of substantial information backing up the claim, that and the story seems to have been broken by TMZ, ugh.

by mauz 5y ago

bena 5y ago

Do you know what circumstantial means? It doesn't mean "weak". It means "pertaining to circumstances". Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. DNA is circumstantial evidence. Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. Trials are based on circumstantial evidence. Hans Reiser was arrested, tried, and convicted of murdering his wife based on nothing but circumstantial evidence that a murder even occurred. They didn't even have her body. If a lawyer would jump up and shout "Objection, evidence is circumstantial", the judge would look at them and say "Yeah, no shit, what's your actual objection?"

mjburgess 5y ago
Consult a dictionary, eg., > pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it. You are correct that within a technical legal context most evidence is circumstantial. But that isnt the only meaning of the word, and indeed, largely not what is meant.
- bena 5y ago
  What they meant is wrong. I can consult Merriam Webster, which agrees with what I said. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20... Or Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence Or Cornell https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence Or basically any single law firm or courthouse https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/circumstantial-evidence/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/circumst... https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/circumstantial-evidence-vs-direct-evidence https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/circumst... https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumst... Yes, inferences must be made. But as a lot of those links mention, direct evidence (the other kind of evidence) is often worse as it's usually eyewitness accounts. Lazy television writers have done us all a disservice by repeated implication that circumstantial evidence isn't good enough.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial 1. belonging to, consisting in, or dependent on circumstances 2. pertinent but not essential : incidental The original comment used the word correctly. Because dictionaries describe how people actually speak, not prescribe rules on how to use words. That's why they get updated every so often as word usages change.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      But this is a word that has a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning. It doesn’t make sense to apply the colloquial definition when a term is being used in the context of a technical discussion. In other words, the appropriate definition of a term of art is... circumstantial. ;)
    - parineum 5y ago
      > how people actually speak To counter that point, "circumstantial" has a legal meaning that does not change as easily.
      - alpaca128 5y ago
        Yes. But this thread isn't a legal document and is mostly written by people that aren't lawyers. A lot of words have specific meanings, yet we don't complain and cite dictionary definitions when people use the word "or" as exclusive-or.
  - dctoedt 5y ago
    The Cornell Law dictionary that you cited is a good summary of what lawyers and judges are likely to think: Evidence that implies a person committed a crime, (for example, the person was seen running away from the crime scene). There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight. Compare to direct evidence.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Putting aside the very first paragraph ("What they meant is wrong"), this post makes some sound points. It is also the case that the alleged new evidence for Poste being the killer is, in fact, circumstantial with respect to the issue of who committed the murders in question. So, returning to that first paragraph, to establish whether what mauze meant is wrong, we must establish both that mauze meant something other than what was written, and that the intended meaning was wrong. I do not see any conclusive evidence as to what mause meant. Furthermore, bena's reply to mause suggests that the intended meaning was 'weak'. That strikes me as plausible, but as far as I can tell, it would not be an obviously wrong characterization of the new evidence.
contravariant 5y ago
Usually when a particular interpretation of a word renders it utterly meaningless then that interpretation is not the correct one. In particular circumstantial can mean 'pertaining to circumstance' or it can be one of several other meanings derived from the same root. One of which is its noun form "Something incidental to the main subject, but of less importance", which sounds like a more reasonable interpretation. Or it may even be one of those words that only has a particular meaning in a legal context.
- bena 5y ago
  People glommed onto the idea of circumstantial meaning weak from police and legal procedurals. And since we are talking about evidence, we should be using it within the context of evidence. And in that context, some or all of the evidence being circumstantial has no bearing on whether or not it is good evidence. This isn't a matter of "other meanings [being] derived from the same root". There is no root. It's a misappropriation of a word from lazy television writers.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    > good evidence > literally hearsay
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      Hearsay evidence can be good evidence, too.
- I_complete_me 5y ago
  I've been looking for an appropriate context to refer to a recently new-found word, to wit "polysemy". Is this it?
sumosudo 5y ago
Other than first-hand knowledge, all evidence is circumstantial. In response to all your detractors comments: looking up words in English dictionaries for law jargon is a bad idea, you will get yourself thrown in the dock. Blacks Law dictionary only. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The term in- cludes all evidence of indirect nature. Milligan v. State, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260, 263. It is direct evidence as to facts deposed to but indirect as to the factum probandum, Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 72 S.W.2d 269, 270; evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred. People v. Steele, 37 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200, 179 Misc. 587; Wolff v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., 282 Ky. 824, 140 S.W.2d 640, 645, 130 A.L.R. 682; Scott v. State, 57 Ga.App. 489, 195 S.E. 923, 924; inferences drawn from facts proved, Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 18 Ca1.2d 798, 117 P. 2d 841, 845; preponderance of probabilities, Hercules Pow- der Co., v. Nieratko, 113 N.J.L. 188, 173 A. 606, 610; pro- cess of decision by which court or jury may reason from circumstances known or proved, to establish by inference the principal fact, People v. Taddio, 292 N.Y. 488, 55 N.E. 2d 749, 750. It means that existence of principal facts is only inferred from circumstances. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Lonas, 255 Ky. 717, 75 S.W.2d 348, 350. When the existence of the principal fact is deduced from evidentiary by a process of probable reasoning, the evi- dence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres. 246; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial be- cause necessarily derived from or made up of circum- stances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive. Burrill. The proof of various facts or circumstances which usual- ly attend the main fact in dispute, and therefore tend to prove its existence, or to sustain, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. Or as otherwise defined, it consists in reasoning from facts which are known or proved to es- tablish such as are conjectured to exist. INDIRECT EVIDENCE. Is that which only tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining by their consistency the hypothesis claimed. It consists of both inferences and pre- sumptions. Lake County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 74 P. 212, 214.
space_rock 5y ago
People don't know how to judge evidence. So they think circumstantial evidence has no weight

polynomial 5y ago

This is exactly why I want to see more info about the cipher they solved (that and my innate interest in ciphers.) The claim is that when you remove all the letters of his full name, there is a 2nd message hidden there. This is exactly the sort of thing I would immensely like to get ahold of and apply some stochastic models to, in addition to just knowing more of the specifics. In any case, if they have truly deciphered a message that implicates him, it would be significantly more than circumstantial. What really pains me is the paucity of substantial information backing up the claim, that and the story seems to have been broken by TMZ, ugh.