Steven Huddleston Feb 10, 2021:

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights However, since authorities do have some inherent value, subject to the sovereign individual's discernment (Rousseau, The Social Contract), I bring this to our attention.

In the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the presumption of innocence is enshrined under Article 11. Establishing that the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused *must* be acquitted.

Politically motivated play on words notwithstanding, circumstances, and therefore circumstantial evidence, will always leave room for reasonable doubt, therefore it cannot, under any circumstance, be conclusive in the context of establishing guilt (culpability).

Steven Huddleston Feb 10, 2021:

Play on words A conclusion may be reached based on circumstantial evidence, but only physical evidence can *prove* actual culpability.

In these times, especially, institutions are way too prone to be swayed by political interests, and play with words to promote a specific agenda, which may or may not respect its charter or mission. Therefore, I do not care at all how "reputable" an institution is believed to be. I view all authorities with the same amount of skepticism, some of them have even earned my contempt. As a bibliophile, I am well aware of how language shifts meaning with the passing of generations, centuries, even millennia. But also, I am well practiced with the tools that can establish meaning and proper usage, and determine when such shifts are ill-conceived and should be resisted, without the need to consult "authoritative institutions." I cannot say that I care much for how language, and linguistic concepts in general, are speciously being perverted in our own time.

Taña Dalglish Feb 10, 2021:

This may well boil down to a question of whether US or UK/EU interpretation!
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE--LAST SEEN TOGETHER ETC https://pg.punjab.gov.pk › circumstantial_evidence_last...
***Conclusive circumstantial evidence*** may be fabricated. Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it must always be narrowly examined if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated in order to cast suspicion on another.

Taña Dalglish Feb 10, 2021:

@ Steven
ILO Administrative Tribunal http://www.ilo.org › dyn › triblex › triblexmain.showList
... facts are disputed and there is no persuasive material evidence, the facts of the dispute must be appraised on the basis of **conclusive circumstantial evidence.** From ILO! Would you consider the ILO a reputable organisation or not?

In Accusations of Adultery - IR Global https://www.irglobal.com › News › News
28 Nov 2016 — 2) Admissible evidence in a case of alleged adultery includes writing, testimony, ***conclusive circumstantial evidence***, and eye witness and ...

Steven Huddleston Feb 10, 2021:

Circumstantial cannot be conclusive. The way I understand the rules of evidence, circumstantial evidence is enough to justify probable cause, but not enough to prove criminal liability. This text sounds to me like an explanation, or definition, of what constitutes circumstantial evidence.