The author -- creator, owner, master, governor? -- of a blog on appellate litigation -- Howard Bashman -- says that this blog on evidence "sounds as though it could be nearly as boring as a blog devoted to the subject of appellate litigation." This is either a compliment or faint praise. Or perhaps it is outright criticism. And if it is criticism, it is virtually unanswerable. Well, I won't let any of these subtle considerations deter me, I will assume the worst, and I will just plow on -- mainly by admitting the case against this blog:
The question of whether Muslim religious beliefs are evidence of terrorist inclinations is ... soooo boooooring!(?)
The question of whether DNA can conclusively prove that innocent people have been executed is also ... sooo boooring!(?)
The question of whether DNA evidence can show the innocence of the youths convicted of "wilding" in the Central Park jogger case is ... soooooooo boooooooring!(?)
(But the question of whether the CIA, FBI, et al. should have anticipated 9/11 is .... clearly ... not boring.)
Well, as they say in Minnesota, ... whatever ...
But perhaps I should note that this blog -- the one now in front of your eyes -- is about evidence, and not just the law of evidence. Hence, this blog is not condemned to investigate only burning issues such as the wisdom of the latest curlicues in the hearsay rule in the Eighth Circuit.
Ah, I have nothing but good wishes for authors of blogs about appellate litigation! (They -- the authors, I mean -- may need my blessings.)
Postscript: While I can guarantee that many of the topics considered in this blog will be interesting, I can't guarantee that my discussion of those interesting topics will be palatable, let alone interesting.