Tuesday, November 30, 2010

A Legal Irony?

In a criminal case in which a defendant pleads an insanity defense, wouldn't the following evidence be admissible by the state to rebut the defendant's claim?


In a case in which an individual alleges, without concrete evidence, that he is a victim of a criminal conspiracy carried out by his former employer, why is the above link not sufficient for the state to initiate a criminal investigation of the individual's allegation?

Keep in mind, theoretically speaking, there are people who might have cognitive capacities that enable them to interpret subtle cues in their environment: that allow them to see things that other people don't:


No comments: