Monday, August 04, 2008

When Will They Ever Learn -- about Circumstantial Evidence etc.

The byline in today's NYTimes reads "Anthrax Evidence Is Called Circumstantial." (The story is by Scott Shane.) The implication of the byline is that the evidence against the suspected (and now-dead) malefactor is therefore weak. The NYTimes should know better. There is weak circumstantial evidence. But there is also strong circumstantial evidence. The same holds true for "direct" evidence given by a putative eyewitness. The same holds true for scientific evidence. The same holds true for confessions.
"When will they ever learn?" Folk Song, the version by Pete Seeger and The Weavers still being the best known
N.B. The above post does not reflect -- and it is not meant to reflect -- my personal opinion (if I have one) about the guilt or innocence of Bruce E. Ivins.

the dynamic evidence page

Post a Comment