First, you blatantly ignore how fingerprints are usually considered circumstancial evidence, then you go off on your own tangent of how eye-witness evidence is not as credible as DNA evidence.
Second, please reread the previous legal sense of circumstantiality. There is not legal delineation created along ontological lines: there is not difference in what the evidence is used to prove only that it is not directly evidence of the ultimate argument.
Now on to the meat...
Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven.
This was from my earlier post. Pay close attention, now. You said:
DNA testing, which is only circumstantial in terminology.
First, the adjective of circumstantial does not relate to the type of evidence, it related to what you intend to prove. Or let me try it this way: to call something circumstantial evidence you need the evidence and the fact you are trying to prove; circumstantial is a relative claim.
An officer find some hair in a car. If your argument was that this person was in that car, then it is not circumstantial evidence: it is direct support of your claim, placing the man at the scene. If you claim was that the man participated in a murder in which the car was also used and it calls upon the judge to infer the man likely murdered the victim because his hair was found in the car, then it is circumstantial.
Second, something is circumstantial in terminology as compare to circumstantial in what other sense? Please show me where in the explanation of circumstantial this claim of multiple ontological categories is validated.
Third, I see this coming, so let just stop you from contradicting yourself now. Don't even try to argue that at some level all evidence is circumstantial, either. In your article you ask when circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming, creating the distinction yourself (or making the word circumstantial moot).
Your previous comment of:
Eye-witness Is far more circumstantial than DNA.
This phrase also doesn't make any sense. You are confusing curcumstantial and invalid or suspect. Eye-witness accounts can be very circumstantial if they are used to prove a point indirectly.
You can argue about weak evidence, invalid evidence, uncorroberated evidence, or suspect evidence all you want. It is all irrelevant to the discussion.
[ Parent ]