View Single Post
Old 11-22-2014, 04:05 AM
mr. jp is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
All you are doing is pointing out that damning circumstantial evidence can have an theoretical innocuous explanation. That is why it's circumstantial. One issue could be brushed off, but not 20+ items in addition to Jay's testimony.
No, its not just that I think they can have an innocuous explanation, its that I think they are innocuous (most of them). Like they are so commonplace that they would happen to any innocent person.

I think the kid in Twelve Angry Men is certainly guilty because of the same type of argument you use here (that multiple lines of evidence add up), which interestingly people mostly do not agree with. So I agree with that way of looking at it. I just dont think a lot of really weak indicators add up to that much.

Last edited by mr. jp; 11-22-2014 at 04:06 AM.