So when can you enage in some remedial genetics reading?
Non-Convergence is easy to determine … when the genetics shows a close relationship, and a detective-like stance on the flagged factors - - is there continuity between one group or another?
If the court system used your rules of evidence, you would never find a man guilty … because you would refuse to believe the “trails of breadcrumbs” that culprits leave behind them…
You would simply repeat your mantra: “that could mean anything”. When in fact, centuries of jurisprudence tells us, “circumstantial evidence” is not really useless. In fact, law schools teach their students that the best cases are usually based on “circumstantial evidence” - - because it’s evidence that can exclude all other possibilities.
The opposite of “Circumstantial Evidence” is not “good evidence”… it’s eye-witness testimony. But witnesses can have memories in error, or they can lie.
“Circumstantial Evidence” doesn’t lie. And if you have ENOUGH circumstantial evidence, the bad guy will be found guilty.
- the defendant has motives.
- the defendant has means (he sells rat poison).
- the defendant has opportunity - - he was the only person alone with the murder victim during the last 4 hours of his life. There is a video of the entrance, and nobody else came or went into the building. The accused cooked a pasta meal for the victim. And the accused has “pasta stains with rat poison in the sauce” on his apron. And the accused said he ate the same meal as the victim.
These are all circumstantial… because they are not based on testimony.
As you can see, “circumstantial evidence” and the proper deductions from it are all that is needed to make a solid conclusion.