RoutineSubstance

I've been thinking a lot about circumstantial evidence and what it can and can't tell us.

Before I try to think about, I want to say that this post has no theory or argument about the crime itself. In fact, I don't even have at theory about the crime itself.

I've been reading law review articles about circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt and have just had it on my mind a lot.

NOTE: For the sake of clarity (and I got this from one of the articles I read), "guilty" and "innocent" refer to factual reality ("did someone do it or not") and "convicted" and "acquitted" refer to outcomes of criminal trials ("how did the jury vote"). So for the sake of this post, someone can be acquit

Like a lot of people, I am hopeful and very interested in the searches going on--hopeful both that they are related to the case and that they yield useful evidence.

My question is aimed at people who know more about the physical science of evidence: what has evidentiary value after several years submerged in fresh, moving water?

Obviously a lot of things would, but I'm curious about what exactly.

As many people have said, a bladed weapon would likely be recoverable. That was obviously the first thing that came to my mind, but like I said, I don't have much knowledge about this. Nearly anything metallic or primarily metallic would survive. But what else?

I'm asking not because I have a th

Trying to think through what could be behind the outfit selected, it seemed like two different avenues opened up based on two different assumptions.

1 If the killer knew (or assumed) that there would be video surveillance inside the building, then the primary job of the outfit is to disguise his/her identity. It would allow the killer to move about inside the church without concern that his/her body or face would be positively identified.

If the killer knew (or assumed) that there would be video surveillance, that means that the killer wasn't attempting to make it look like a robbery in any meaningful way. Obviously, a robbery hardly makes sense in the first place, but would be focused on

I think there is a pretty big risk in over-reading what Ives said in the latest podcast episode.

His definition of signature seems very different from the standard definition as it is applied to serial killers.

He says:

All unique circumstances of a crime are a sort of signature...There was nothing that seemed similarly, identical that you think this is modus operandi--I don't know if you're familiar with the term modus operandi--where sometimes criminals will commit a crime in such a way that it's so distinct that it acts as a sort of signature for them

So Ives' defines signature as "all unique circumstances of a crime," specifies that there was nothing that was so distinct t

For quite a while, an argument has circulated that purported to use the fact that the DNA sample obtained from the crime scene was entered into the Combined DNA Index System (or CODIS) as unequivocal evidence that the DNA sample belonged to the perpetrator. I want to put that claim into an empirical context.

My goal is not to argue for or against any particular theory, but instead, my goal is to think clearly about one specific argument that gets occasionally used. This is not an argument for or against any perpetrator, but is about the weight and meaning of certain kinds of argument.

The argument generally relies on the “[CODIS Fa

(This doesn't relate directly to the case but I think the issues they raise are relevant and interesting.)

​

The Washington Post published a series of six opinion pieces in which one of their writers interviewed/queried experts who work in law, science, and forensics on how they think modern forensics needs to be improved. All of the articles are interesting, but three really stand out in relation to this case: "How much should juries rely on expert testimony?," "How much interaction should we allow between forensics analysts and law enforcement?," and "Is an adversarial justice system compatible with good science?"

The first seems especially important. One of the experts, a

Looking back at the press conference, there seemed to be three major aspects worth considering.

1 the new sketch

2 the request for info about the vehicle

3 the rhetoric

The first aspect seems to be the most straightforward: for whatever reason, they now think this is a more accurate representation of what the suspect looks like. This seems like a direct appeal to the public and an attempt to solicit (hopefully) valuable information that could contribute to the resolution of the case.

Aspect three seems to be an intentional attempt to rile, scare, aggravate, needle, or somehow engage with the suspect. Allusions to his conscience, to the imminence of his arrest, or a movie have no direct

The report from a local ABC affiliate (WCVB) stated that an "the impetus for the ground penetrating radar survey was the alleged discovery of unidentified bones during an oil line installation."

The news report attributes this knowledge not to the homeowners or to the contractors who laid the "oil line," but to the report of the GPR specialist. According to the news report, the quote above is taken directly out of the report. See the video here and note the direct quotation on screen around 1:11.

First off, it doesn't make clear at all from where the GPR specialist

Looking to purchase good condition Fiio e17k Alpen 2 DAC/Amp. Thanks!

Partly response to the below post asking for clarification and partly in response to the way the rumor circulates as if it were true, I think the question needs to be asked more bluntly: Does anyone have a non-reddit, attributed source for the idea that the victims used the phrase "creepy guy" on the recording?

After doing some preliminary research. The earliest source for "creepy guy" comment that I could find is this from a December 16, 2017 Gray Hughes youtube video

Transcript between 10:20 and 10:54:

"they might have you know been walking and then look back and then saw that the suspect was actually on you know the wa

I recently bought from amazon the Mono box set from amazon which came with an autorip of the mp3s. I listen to music almost exclusively on my iPhone (and I bought the box set largely for the booklet/reproductions). I know originally when the box set was released it came with free "high quality mp3s," but I don't think bobdylan.com is still offering them.

​

I understand that mp3 is a degraded/lossy medium, but does anyone know if the official bobdylan.com mp3s were superior to the "autorip" ones that amazon offers?

Thanks!

​

​