Quote:
Originally posted by AbulletAwayGoneBad
Circumstantial evidence is all that is needed to convict anyone of anything. Look it up before you make claims like "is required". Don't know where ya heard that but it was a lie.
|
How can you possibly convict someone without any direct evidence? Without that you cannot hope to remove reasonable doubt. With circumstantial evidence, there will always be reasonable doubt, that's why it's circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.
Edit:
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2.../cr99-928.html
"4. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence -- must be consistent with defendant's guilt. -- Circumstantial evidence can provide the basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion."
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."