Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good
Pretty much everything short of a confession or catching the perpetrator in the act is circumstantial.
|
Exactly. Technically speaking, DNA evidence is circumstantial. If an inference of any sort has to be drawn from the evidence presented, it's circumstantial evidence. DNA allows for an inference of presence/ownership which allows for an inference of the alleged conduct. DNA evidence is textbook circumstantial evidence.
But brain surgeons like Setsuna eat that shit up when defense attorneys start taking about "purely circumstantial evidence" as though circumstantial evidence is somehow akin to a psychic reading.
Direct evidence, especially witness testimony, is notoriously unreliable, but evidently that's all you can convict on according to the average half-wit.