So in your own tortured logic, Ramos and Compean's eyewitness testimony that they thought they saw a gun "is actual evidence, eyewitness testimony" that there was a gun. Thank You!
I stand by what I stated: One could say there was no evidence that there was a gun, but that is different than saying that the lack of evidence (is evidence or) proves the gun did not exist.
Thank you! Simple logic seems to escape some.
Yes. I have said that Compean and Ramos gave evidence that they believed he had a gun. That evidence would probably have saved them a conviction if not for the contradicting evidence.
I don’t know why you consider that tortured logic. Are you desiring to restrict “evidence” to physical evidence? There’s a reason for the term “physical evidence” — because there are OTHER kinds of evidence.
The only physical evidence that would come close to proving he didn’t have a gun would be to have caught him and searched him. Except that you could still claim he threw it away. Even if they didn’t SEE him do it, he could have dropped it in the river, or thrown it in the brush. Even if they searched the place and didn’t find it, it’s a big place.