Reply #212: For both of you: [View All]

[darkstar3]

Circumstantial evidence is not valid by itself. You either need direct evidence to go with it, or you need a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence to eliminate doubt. And in some cases, as in the OJ case, a mountain of circumstantial evidence still can't eliminate doubt.

The circumstantial evidence in the Duke case just wasn't enough for a jury worth a damn to convict. It simply isn't valid unless and until there is enough other evidence to make it so.

It's like the difference between a parabolic curve and an arch. A solid parabolic curve can stand on its own, while an arch will crumble if you remove only one piece.