Creative Speculation

Last edited Mon Oct 29, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

based on the ambiguous opinions of one man. As William Seger pointed out, you haven't even defined what "hard evidence" means. It apparently means what you want it to mean.

There often isn't just one piece of evidence that convicts a defendant. If there is a video of Joe Blow from Montana bragging about conducting 9-11, without any collaborating evidence, one could disregard the evidence.

In the case of Osama, he has a history of such activities, known associates involved in the crime, multiple statements claiming responsibility, motive, and authority over the organization that committed the crime, and whatever other evidence that may exist. That makes a compelling case. You need to address the case rather than trying to appeal to authority.