Creative Speculation

Or over the phone.

Tombs knows what 'hard evidence' is, I'm certain.

You're outside the realm of reason, can't understand simple logic, but I'll try one more time:

It's not MY opinion that the video is not 'hard evidence', it is the FBI's opinion. I think the FBI knows better than either of us what constitutes hard evidence.

Once again, it seems pretty clear that the OV adherents like yourself want the video to be proof of bin Laden's guilt, but then believe that even with such proof, he cannot be indicted for the crime.

My reasoning is very sound. What isn't is your unwillingness to accept a very, very simple reality: uncoerced video confessions are considered 'hard evidence' enough to put people in jail, let alone merely indict them.

Your attempts to deflect from this are plenty enough proof that you have no solid ground to stand on, and a reinforcement of my initial conclusions. Thank you for that.