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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (366248)	3/4/2003 6:00:38 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

As I said, nobody in the United States would EVER be convicted without circumstantial evidence. It is the most important type of evidence we have. Sometimes it can be flimsy, but most convictions are built on irrefutable circumstantial evidence. That's it. You are too naive to understand even the basic tenets of the U.S. justice system. Figures you'd also have a knee jerk reaction to the DP.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (366248)	3/4/2003 6:01:44 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually, the difference is not between circumstantial and solid evidence, it is between circumstantial and direct evidence. In other words, circumstantial evidence is evidence requiring an extended inference. If it is cumulative, and all points in the same direction, so that there is no credible alternative explanation, then it satisfies the condition of being "beyond a reasonable doubt".....