--- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of sparaig > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was > Re:Two...questions from Turq] > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > The degree of evidence imo doesn't rise to the level of a criminal > conviction; (unanimous agreement among jurors); but rather a "preponderance" > of evidence as in civil cases. (or the ancient Roman system which had a mere > majority for "guilty"). I'd say guilty, 95% but why bring this up again and > again. It's about as water under the bridge as "Weiner-gate". and no longer > of much interest. imo. > > I haven't read the book, and don't intend to, but for "preponderance of > evidence" to apply, you would need more than one witness to the events > because the consisted of personal interactions of two parties. There's no > stained shirt, for example. > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of multiple women. Each had > their own "events". Only one has had the guts to write a book. >
Well, so you now have several people claiming that several different events happened, apparently always in private. Still not anything more than he-said, she-said. Lawson
