Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (72245)	2/7/2003 11:15:14 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Circumstantial evidence is the opposite of direct evidence. If you observe a man shooting another man, that's direct evidence. If you hear a gunshot, run into a room through its only opening, passing nobody on the way, and see one man on the floor, and the other holding a gun, and there's gunsmoke in the room, that's circumstantial, but it's very good circumstantial evidence. If it turns out that he has gunpowder on his hands, that's direct evidence that he shot a gun, and circumstantial evidence that he's the murderer. If he has the victim's blood on his clothing, that's direct evidence that the victim bled on him, and circumstantial evidence that he's the murderer. If he has the victim's wallet in his pocket, that's circumstantial evidence of theft, and tends to prove a motive for murder. Eyewitness testimony from defectors, I would say is direct evidence. So are intercepted telephone conversations. I have read analyis that goes, "well, except for the fact that the man said "nerve gas," there's no way to know what he's talking about." That is pretty funny, I think. Some of the evidence depends on specialized knowledge. For example, the blob on the satellite photo that is supposed to be a certain kind of vehicle. I have to take their word for it, but that's direct evidence if they're right. But infering from the presence of a special vehicle outside a building that the building contains poison, that's circumstantial. Inferring from the fact that the building was bulldozed, that they are trying to hide something, that's circumstantial, too. But very good circumstantial. I wonder how many of the people who dismiss Powell's show-and-tell believe Scott Ritter?