From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:28:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > You want to handle this like a court case, then follow the law. The shells   
   are admissible.   
   > Who said anything about admissibility ?    
   > Your reading comprehension is lacking.    
   >    
   > The question is:    
   >    
   > What proof do you have that the .38 cal shells currently in evidence are the   
   same shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?    
      
   Shifting the burden of proof. I’ve cited the law on this frequently enough   
   that you should know it by now. Let me summarize those points here:   
   1. Even when the evidence trail is lacking, the evidence is admissible. The   
   jury gets to decide how much weight to put on it.   
   2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that businesses   
   and government offices are doing their due diligence regarding the evidence   
   presented in court. You need to present evidence that these are not the same   
   shells, not simply    
   presume it then ask us to disprove it.   
      
      
   >    
   > Try to keep up, oh "more knowledgeable" one.   
      
   I’m trying, but I can’t keep up with your ignorance of the law and   
   repeated logical fallacies.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)