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: Bill who wrote (366251)	3/4/2003 6:28:22 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I'm not arguing against using circumstanial evidence. It certainly has its place in our legal system. Like you said, our legal system would be broken without it. But, I certainly take circumstanial evidence to mean exactly what it says "circumstanial" meaning evidence derived from a certain set of circumstances that point to the guilt of the accussed. Circumstial evidence is not nearly as convincing as direct physical evidence. I'm sure the rates of overturning convictions is much higher in cases involving circumstanial evidence than direct physical evidence like semen, just because of the nature of the evidence. To return to our original point, I doubt Bill Clinton could be convicted of rape without direct physical evidence. "nobody in the United States would EVER be convicted without circumstantial evidence" Really? Like there aren't cases that are so clear cut that direct physical evidence is enough to gain a conviction? I'm not going to stake my reputation on it, but I'm sure there must be some convictions that don't rely on any circumstanial evidence.