Humor me

[Paul May]

?Consciousness of guilt? isn?t a ?fact?, it?s confirmation bias. Pot, kettle.

Of course a direct evidence case is stronger. Circumstantial evidence is all judgment calls and assumptions.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does

[John Iacoletti]

Why do you routinely ask the dumbest questions on this forum?  And that?s saying something.

Why are you routinely unable to answer the dumbest questions on this forum?

[John Iacoletti]

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.

Not in this case.

Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence,

That is eyewitness testimony, just not of the crime, and has all the same problems.

or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission.

?Experts? are just as subject to bias and error as anyone else. In a real trial, this is tempered by having both sides present expert testimony.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.  Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does

Too bad all the evidence was tainted.  You would think there would be more evidence other than LHO was in the DSBD that day.  If Oswald would have survived being shot I wonder how much he would have received for damages. What a terrible couple of days where two individuals were not protected appropriately, how embarrassing and I am sure you would agree.

[Paul May]

Why have you even posted 194 times if you ?no longer play that game??

Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

[John Iacoletti]

Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

So when you said you ?no longer play that game?, you didn?t really mean it?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Addiction.  I love reading what you xxxxxx post. Just being honest.

"Addiction" you shouldn't joke around considering the fact it was a group of old men who lured you in with their WC candy, kidnapped that lazy mind of yours and we still see they continue to do the thinking for you.