I opened the thread before signing in and saw this ignorant post, and thought it deserved my attention to school people on your side
who are not versed in law.
You misapprehend "evidence" definitionally to such an extent it appears you believe the only real evidence is what amounts to a confession
of the accused in the form of a statement that also defines the crime.
Here is what real evidence is: any fact that tends in reason to make another fact (a fact that is of consequence to determination of the action) (see element) more or less probable.
That's it^ So ANYTHING that fits that def. is REAL evidence. Now I know you drones are defending your queen bee under attack, so your would not admit it was raining if we were standing in it, but
if proving it had rained in the morning were the relevant to an offense, REAL EVIDENCE of it, and by that I mean admissible evidence of it would include ALL the following:
it was cloudy that day,
there are umbrellas laying around on front porches,
some people are still wearing rain coats
there are puddles of water,
the almanac recorded that it had rained,
25 people said it rained
farmer brown is wear golashas
your goat is muddy
it rained again that same day
someone told me that someone told them they were in the rain that morning
ALL OF IT. Each these is REAL evidence. And the cumulative value of all the uncontroverted witnesses testimony over weeks was damning and
in a REAL lawsuit would guaranfuckingT a verdict or judgment in the plaintiff's or people's favor.
Here we had a dozen witnesses testify and documentary REAL evidence and you offered zero. So you can
say that in your lay opinion you find this or that piece not conclusive, but you cannot say no evidence, of flimsy, or a dearth or thin or not real.
Just wanted to add some real law to your ignorant right wing troll-for-a-lifestyle loser existence, clown. Now sit facing the corner with your usual duncecap affixed to your
pointy inferior republican head.
