Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Greenperson
...circumstantial evidence...
It seems that circumstantial evidence is definitive proof for some people.
750 posted on 08/12/2012 1:16:54 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36

Circumstantial is what we’re left with when there’s NO primary evidence in sight. NONE presented to ANY court, even though there were ample opportunities. We’re to believe that the “birth certificate” is real. If so, then why did he not present it to the very first judge? Why did he not present it to ANY reporter who asked to see it? Why is it still not available for scrutiny? Why did Mr. Lakin go to prison when Obama could have simply showed him the document?

There are no documents to authenticate forensically, or even SEE. There are NONE.

People have gone to the gas chamber on circumstantial evidence alone. It’s legitimate evidence and sometimes, it’s all there is. Anybody who’s ever sat on a jury knows that. The evidence is presented. The jury weighs it and decides. OFTEN in a jury trial, there is conflicting evidence. It’s the jury’s decision to weigh credibility. Imho, Obama has none.


754 posted on 08/12/2012 2:14:13 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson