“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sherlock Holmes
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully. “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sherlock Holmes
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully. “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."
Really? Is this the Fox News interpretation?
Let me ask you this....what is the usual method of investigation in this case. What don't we have/what wasn't done?
If you don't know the answer, just send an email to Fox news asking the same question so you know how best to answer.
Really? Is this the Fox News interpretation?
Let me ask you this....what is the usual method of investigation in this case. What don't we have/what wasn't done?
If you don't know the answer, just send an email to Fox news asking the same question so you know how best to answer.
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sherlock Holmes
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully. “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Sherlock Holmes
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully. “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."
The actions you cite and the information obtained by the police are not criminal. That is not to say a criminal act did or did not occur. We just don't know.
I am more bothered by what was not investigated and as a result of what we did not know, either a young man was wrongly murdered or a innocent man is being crucified.
The actions you cite and the information obtained by the police are not criminal. That is not to say a criminal act did or did not occur. We just don't know.
I am more bothered by what was not investigated and as a result of what we did not know, either a young man was wrongly murdered or a innocent man is being crucified.
This.
If the police concluded that Nichole Brown Simpson was killed by drug dealers and never searched OJ's house or questioned him, would that mean probable cause did not exist?
This.
If the police concluded that Nichole Brown Simpson was killed by drug dealers and never searched OJ's house or questioned him, would that mean probable cause did not exist?
The left wing has not been innocent either.
I have no problem with people pointing out the terrible investigation, but there is no reason to villify Zimmerman in the process.
The left wing has not been innocent either.
I have no problem with people pointing out the terrible investigation, but there is no reason to villify Zimmerman in the process.
The left wing has not been innocent either.
I have no problem with people pointing out the terrible investigation, but there is no reason to villify Zimmerman in the process.
The left wing has not been innocent either.
I have no problem with people pointing out the terrible investigation, but there is no reason to villify Zimmerman in the process.
Probably because it is not against the law to disobey a dispatcher. Just a big fat guess.
Probably because it is not against the law to disobey a dispatcher. Just a big fat guess.
Really? Is this the Fox News interpretation?
Let me ask you this....what is the usual method of investigation in this case. What don't we have/what wasn't done?
If you don't know the answer, just send an email to Fox news asking the same question so you know how best to answer.
Really? Is this the Fox News interpretation?
Let me ask you this....what is the usual method of investigation in this case. What don't we have/what wasn't done?
If you don't know the answer, just send an email to Fox news asking the same question so you know how best to answer.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.