A Striking Similarity

Anyone who has studied the history of murder trials and/or who likes to watch courtroom drama on TV or in films knows that a defendant can sometimes be convicted of the alleged crime even when no direct evidence is present. There have been numerous cases in which the body of the decedent has never been found, yet a jury will still convict for murder. There are many cases in which no murder weapon is located nor any finger prints are found of the accused at the crime scene, yet the jury still believes the information presented is compelling enough to find the accused guilty as charged.

In such cases, the jury convicts based on the presentation of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

We all utilize circumstantial evidence in our everyday lives. If I loan my car to a friend and determine that ONLY my friend was in the car, if it then is returned to me with a slew of empty beer cans in the back seat, I will infer that my friend tossed them there. Even though I did not see him do it, I will be convinced that he is the one at fault.

I bring this concept of circumstantial evidence to your attention because I've recently noticed two issues in which some people don't wish to apply it: global warming and the recent suggestion that vitriolic rhetoric may have created an atmosphere more conducive to violence.

In both cases, deniers point to the fact that no one piece of evidence can be shown to indicate a direct cause. Since there is no incontrovertible evidence, then both theories are complete hogwash.

In the case of global warming, climate and the environment present multiple variables. Because there are a multiplicity of variables -- including many that we have not yet identified -- it is virtually impossible to say that x definitely and without question caused y. It is because we are unable to account for every variable that global warming deniers claim that this lack of unequivocal direct evidence proves that global warming is nothing more than some vast conspiracy and doesn't really exist.

Major polluters use this tack to get out of paying victims compensatory damages AND to continue polluting as always. If it is shown the rate of certain cancers went through the roof once this or that plant was built and the company is accused of causing the spike in area cancers, their defense is always the same -- show us the direct and incontrovertible evidence linking the release of this or that pollutant with such cancers (while knowing that this is virtually impossible to do).

In the case of vitriolic rhetoric leading to an atmosphere more conducive to violence, the very same kind of tactic is employed. Knowing at the outset that a large number of factors go into the decision of any person to commit mass murder, the vitriolic rhetoric deniers demand to see a direct link between their words and the commission of the act. Even in those cases where it can be shown that the accused was a fan or possessed copies of the demagogue's work, this still does not provide a direct link and the vitriolic rhetoric deniers KNOW this.

The ironic thing, though, is that these same deniers utilize circumstantial evidence in the positions that THEY advocate. So, it would seem that circumstantial evidence is a-ok in their book AS LONG as it is not used to promote something THEY don't agree with!