Author: David Dahlem
Date: 16:55:40 05/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2005 at 19:26:18, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On May 30, 2005 at 12:50:08, David Dahlem wrote: > >> >>>Like I mentioned in another post , there are lot of innocent people who get >>>convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence >> >>There seems to be some kind of idea that 'circumstantial' evidence is 'weak' >>evidence. In fact, that is not the case! >> >>Regards >>Dave >> >Hi Dave: > >Completely off the topic, but your comment reminded me of a story told by a >judge once when I served jury duty. > >You bake a chocolate cake and tell your children, a little boy and a little >girl, to leave it alone. Sometime later you return to the kitchen to find a big >hunk of the cake missing. The boy's hands and face are smeared with chocolate. >He says his sister ate the cake. The girl's hands and face are clean. > >The evidence against the boy is circumstantial. The evidence against the girl >is direct. Who do you believe? > >Best >Dan H. Hi Dan Great example of the strength of circumstantial evidence and that eye witness testimony is not always reliable. Fingerprints and DNA are circumstatial evidence, yet there is a strongly held belief amoung many unknowing persons that only direct evidence is conclusive. :-) Regards Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.