Quote:
Originally Posted by willx
Not to be "that guy" .. but I'd point out that the "burden of proof" in civil vs. criminal suits are quite different.
In a criminal case, you must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
In a civil suit, you must prove "based on the balance of probabilities"
|
I had this in mind while reading, and yes, there is no guarantee he was actually a pawn of the government. It's just by preponderance of evidence that it seems so. More evidence points to him being affiliated than evidence saying he was not.