>>Do you see anything wrong about your conclusions?<<
Nope. I was being sarcastic about it not being evidence. You may not know it but I am a trial lawyer. I understand what evidence is, and what it isn't. I believe that you, and Flats, and probably others, don't. You are confusing evidence with the burden of proof.
Evidence is something which has probative value, that is, it tends to make a fact in dispute more likely, or less likely. Think of the scales of justice being in balance. Any fact which, put down on the scales, tips the balance one way or the other, is evidence. Any fact with probative value, no matter how slight, is evidence, and usually admissible, subject always to various rules that we don't need to get into unless you really want to. The rules fill up encyclopedias, but can be boiled down to a few essentials.
The burden of proof in a civil suit is whether the fact at issue is more probable than not. The burden of proof in a criminal suit is whether it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a fraud suit is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that fraud occurred.
The fact in dispute is whether there are Dems in Florida who have committed outright vote fraud. The fact that a Palm Beach Dem activist had a Votomatic in his car does not, by itself, meet any burden of proof. It is, however, evidence, which with other evidence can be used to meet the burden of proof.
On the issue of wrongdoing, do you have an innocent explanation for chads being taped back into ballots for Bush? |
