Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: About Fafis...

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!
>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?
>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. :-)


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.