you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 3 days ago (7 children)

You realize that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Yeah. You realize one is used to do the other?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    Sure but it was NOT used to do the other. That's why the other doesn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    One is used to do the other in a trial. It wasn't done because it didn't have a chance to. In the meantime it was enough to get an indictment from a grand jury - admittedly a low bar but still something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    That's not really how that works. You find the proof and then go to trial...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Ok, but the in quote from the other reply he asserts that they did develop it. So what specifically are they missing that any other criminal case would have had before trial?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments