Nick

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Donovanjohn9 @Shreksdnu2 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Again, the defense is NOT obligated to produce a shred of evidence for ANYTHING.

They can create a reasonable doubt by only attacking and poking holes in the prosecution WITHOUT any real case of their own.
Only the prosecution has the burdeon of proof.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Coeur_d_Jay @RealCandaceO He's going to try to do that no matter what. That's what he does.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Agentx_yz @robnoerr @RealCandaceO I said, "if he fails to convince her." Meaning the evidence is NOT convincing. She was CORRECT in her disbelief.

If you are just going to be reductionist.

A conviction doesn't necessarily mean he did do it either. So, what is your point?
People can be wrongly convicted

[Nick @Nick140049]

@RealCandaceO The defense could literally use one of the theories to defend Tyler (Lance did it for example) and not be obligated to provide a shred of evidence. Only to create a reasonable doubt.

I don't understand why Andrew pretends not to understand this.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Donovanjohn9 @Shreksdnu2 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Breaking News

Criminal defense attorneys are heavily protected from civil suits by opposing parties, victims, and third party non-clients. With few limited exceptions.

They could lay out a case that Lance Twiggs is guilty to cause reasonable doubt and he could do nothing.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Agentx_yz @robnoerr @RealCandaceO What?

How are we substituting debate results for a trial now?

If Andrew fails to convince Candace. They she is correct in her disbelief.
What does that have anything to do with the verdict?

If the prosecution fails to convince the jury. Again, Candace is correct to disbeliev

[Nick @Nick140049]

@_mandarins @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Becase there is not quote that you can provide.
She has NEVER claimed to know for a FACT that any of these things are guilty.
You are just conflating theory with fact.

The hyperbole is your little spiel about her investigation and your rinky dink school paper.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@paleochristcon @lisablueslover You clipped out the context.

That being the "overwhelming evidence" IS the state's UNDERWHELMING evidence!

The only way to debate this claim of hers is for YOU to quit running away from digging into the state's evidence.

You really thought you had a gotcha here. 🤣

[Nick @Nick140049]

@lisablueslover @ABtheRT @paleochristcon Do you understand the context of that claim. He conveniently clipped it out.

The "overwhelming evidence" she is referring to us the UNDERWHELMING state's evidence. 😂

The only way to debate this claim is for Andrew to quit trying to hide from having to go over state evidence!

[Nick @Nick140049]

@_mandarins @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Give me ONE fact claim of who she says she KNOWS killed Charlie that isn't Tyler.
QUOTE IT! I'll wait

Hyperbole is not an argument. So quit wasting your words.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Agentx_yz @robnoerr @RealCandaceO How is she "incapable of being correct?"

If she states that she doesn't believe Tyler did it and you fail to convince her. Then, she is correct. Lol

The defense could use any theory and would not be obligated to provide a shred of evidence. Only to create a reasonable doubt.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@paleochristcon @IanCarrollShow But you won't defend your claims. You will deflect and sperg all debate crying about how "it's unfair to question government evidence."

The defense could use any theory and wouldn't be obligated to provide a shred of evidence. Only to create a reasonable doubt.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@nefoodventures @realDailyTrite @ulfzway @RealCandaceO Oof, you sure showed me.

Your master debater is running from a woman like the punk bitch he is.

All day long whining about fairness and "lions den." 😂 What an pathetic clout chaser.

Go fill his grift bar you fairy.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Shreksdnu2 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Hey retard, Candace is not a prosecutor or even on the side of the prosecutor. She is on the side of the defense. The defense has ZERO burdeon of proof. The defense could use her theories as a defense and not need any evidence at all. They only need to create reasonable doubt.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@_mandarins @robnoerr @RealCandaceO I'm sorry, since when is "theory" a fact statement? Because, last I checked they are not the same thing.

She has investigated theories. If she made fact claims to of knowing what happened. She wouldn't need to investigate still. Would she?

Andrew has the burdeon of proof.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Masterhunter25 @bjones306 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Notice, how every time the holes in the rest of yalls narrative are pointed out as i laid it out to you.
Yall completely ignore it and act like it doesn't exist.

Very "overwhelming...." 😂

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Masterhunter25 @bjones306 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO No, he DEFINATELTY did no say that! 😂
I just watched the testimony again.

Why would he say "it's definitely him" and "I can't say 100% for sure?"

Sounds like devastating testimony if your goal is to remove reasonable doubt. 🤣

[Nick @Nick140049]

@bjones306 @Masterhunter25 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO You're a dumbass. I'm done cooking you.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Agentx_yz @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Sounds like the only way to find out if she is correct is to go in depth on the state's evidence. Too bad Andrew refuses to do so.
She literally said that he would get time to ask her about her theories.

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Masterhunter25 @bjones306 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO Let's also not forget the highly suspicious granting of immunity to Twiggs very early on in spite of his DNA also being on virtually everything. The entire "meeting" they filmed is strange and the immunity makes it look like pay for play

[Nick @Nick140049]

@Masterhunter25 @bjones306 @robnoerr @RealCandaceO patsy if Andrew refuses to actually allow her to go through his evidence to back her claim?