Date Published: 12/28/09

PRESS RELEASE: The Nigerian Suicide Bombers & The Circumstantial facts surrounding the allegation. 

BY KAYODE AJULO

Yes! There was an explosion which was detonated.

Yes! Its effect as reported was only mere little pop sound and then a bit of a smoke and then some flames.

Foreign politics & security, at it again, how can blanket & water be used to put off bomb explosion.

The poor typical Africa bush man may have gotten excited with the Xmas celebration and off  he lighted a "knock-out" fire cracker inside the plane! to herald the Xmas as being done in this side of the world.

He has been labelled and arrested as suicide bomber. Suicide bombing is not in our character as Nigerians.

I however blame him for being over excited and trying to teach the custodian of Xmas celebration how best to celebrate it.

He must pay for his infraction but not to be labelled al-Qaeda terrorist in a jiffy without any compelling and forensic facts.

These are what must be used to prove the allegation against “the suicide bombers”

Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact.

By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.

Testimony that the witness saw “the suicide bomber” doing it, a forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the explosive is a real bomb capable of causing the desire effects of “the bomber” from which the bomber’s guilt may be inferred.

Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence ). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence.

The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.

This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful.

In fact many successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.

Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence".

The 2005 murder trial of Scott Peterson trial was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Its hope that the US security agency will toe this path to unravel the veil behind the bombing saga and save Nigerians another grave label in our international borders and scenes.

Our media also need to sit up to present our own side of the story to the benefit of all.