[andyt]

Victim's blood on the suspect doesn't absolutely prove he did it, only that he was there. Maybe another person did the killing, and the suspect was only standing near by. Or the classic "I came how to find my wife on the floor and got the blood on me trying to revive her." Same with DNA - maybe in a rape case and semen is found, that would be different. Nope, all circumstantial, and read how what poor "science" forensic analysis really is.

You last sentence describes testimonial evidence.

I'm not saying forensic evidence can't be used to establish guilt, but by Bart's standard it could not be used for the death penalty.

[DrCaleb]

But the suspect's prints on the murder weapon must also be circumstantial.

[andyt]

Of course. How do you know for certain he didn't handle it after the killer used it?

$1:

A confusing point for many is that legally, all forensic evidence generated by the wide variety of forensic specialty areas including fingerprint identification and DNA analysis, fall under the category of circumstantial evidence and therefore serve as only partial proof of a criminal act.

http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html

Guess others share your confusion.


Turns out that testimonial evidence is not the same as direct evidence. Direct evidence includes eyewitness accounts and confessions - we all know the problems with those, including people on death row identified by the vic but later exonerated by DNA, so I wouldn't use those to state murder people either.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

What kind of evidence is neither circumstantial or testimonial? Forensic evidence is all circumstantial.

You're confusing physical evidence with circumstantial evidence.

Example:

Someone gets shot with a shotgun. You're the only person the police can think of who knows the victim and who has a shotgun. They then prosecute you based on the circumstance that you MUST be the person that committed the crime.

Someone gets shot with a rifle. You're found with a rifle in your possession that has the same caliber as the round that hit the victim. The round is later determined to have the same ballistics as your rifle AND you tested positive for GSR at the time you came into custody AND a video surveillance camera recorded you shooting at the victim with your rifle.

All of that is physical evidence.

[andyt]

Read my link above. The only direct evidence you present here is the video, all else is circumstantial.

Physical evidence = circumstantial evidence, as my link makes clear.

As for using video evidence as grounds for state murder, we all know how video can be altered. There would have to be a very strong chain of custody of that evidence, and in the US I wouldn't doubt that even then some jurisdictions wouldn't be above altering it.