No matter how many times I point out that it is not any single item of evidence, it is the mountain of evidence that says that Ivins made the anthrax powders and mailed the letters, the argument always returns to the Anthrax Truthers pointing to a single item of evidence and saying it doesn't Ivins was guilty.
Here's the definition of "circumstantial evidence" from one on-line legal dictionary.
"circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case...)On my web site I have two lists of evidence. Click HERE for a list of evidence against Dr. Ivins and the counter arguments from Anthrax Truthers who claim that none of it means anything.
Here are a few of the items of circumstantial evidence from the list at the top of my web site:
Dr. Ivins tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.
Dr. Ivins had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters. He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.
Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.
Dr. Ivins had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.Here's more information about "Circumstantial Evidence":
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).And a definition from another on-line dictionary:
Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.Ed