Hacker News Reader

Obviously this looks very bad but you don't seriously think it constitutes evidence?

Imagine there's a camera continuously recording a cookie jar. A child eats all of the cookies and then deletes the footage from the time they ate the cookies. A parent returns to find their child covered in crumbs, loudly proclaiming they haven't eaten a cookie in years and actively interferes with the parent's investigation and tries to distract from it by throwing a brick through the window of an Iranian family down the street.

Are any of the facts in this hypothetical "evidence"? With the knowledge of the truth (that the kid ate the cookies), it's clear these are all relevant pieces of evidence. If we take knowledge of the truth out of the equation, would these facts still be evidence? Unambiguously they would.

you don't seriously think it constitutes evidence? Do you even know what the word evidence mean? It is not the same as proof.

Maybe you would want to insert the term "circumstantial" or so.

Definitionally both circumstantial and direct evidence are forms of evidence. No modifier is necessary.

And incidentally you can be convicted in a court of law purely on circumstantial evidence, and that's the place in society where we have the highest standard of proof. The evidence all being circumstantial is not a gotcha.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com