A Quote by Jack Henry Abbott

There was never sufficient evidence presented at my trial to support a finding of intent to kill. — © Jack Henry Abbott
There was never sufficient evidence presented at my trial to support a finding of intent to kill.
Of course, the main reason is the change of law in the way Germany has brought Nazi war criminals to trial. The previous rules was that you'd have to have tangible evidence, and documentary evidence was not sufficient.
When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented.
I don't care how much evidence the state presented. I've never for one moment believed he murdered that waitress.
There is not a morsel of evidence backing up any of the claims or any of the narratives or any of the premises that make up today's news. There is not a morsel of evidence on anybody. There's not a morsel of evidence on Flynn! On Manafort! On Carter Page! There's no evidence on Trump! And yet the reporting goes on. Convicted of high crimes already without a trial. It's a great piece by Eli Lake.
The grand jury's job is not to weigh the evidence from both sides; it is only to decide whether there is enough evidence on one side to bring a person to trial.
A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honored, the accused has competent counsel, and the judge enforces the proper courtroom procedures - a trial in which every assumption can be challenged.
Although the evidence at this trial shows that Charles Manson was the leader of the conspiracy to commit these murders, there is no evidence that he actually personally killed any of the seven victims in this case.
I don't think Amber taped Scott or testified for money, but the opportunity certainly presented itself. It makes me a bit uncomfortable, but at least she never sold the story before trial to the tabloids.
While you're finding evidence of innocence, you also find evidence that points to other people.
This war [in Syria] is going to support Al-Qaeda and the same people that killed Americans in the 11th of September. The second thing that we want to tell Congress, that they should ask and that what we expect them to ask this administration about the evidence that they have regarding the chemical story and allegations that they presented.
In all, we investigated, I think, close to 50 rumors about offers to kill Dr. King around the country. But we found no evidence to support rumors of FBI involvement in the assassination.
Sometimes, we find what we want by also finding out what you don't want. All of that is trial and error. Once you're in that pit, the trial and error is important. It's up to us; we've got to keep moving forward.
Until recent times, absence of evidence for his [Jehovah's] existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have no record of racism or antisemitism, there is no evidence to support it, not even a shred of evidence.
No government intent on persecuting its critics will want to leave the outcome of a trial to chance.
If there is one thing that I take pride in, it is the fact that I never, ever make a charge without offering a substantial amount of support for it. You may ultimately end up not agreeing with me, but you will have to concede that I offered much evidence in support of my position, something that people frequently do not do.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!