there was no direct testiomy making the claim that she was not vaxxed or boosted. there was a claim that she wasnt boosted 3 days prior.
How would you have "direct" evidence of someone NOT being boosted? Wouldn't you have to be with them 24/7? Otherwise, its circumstantial. Like direct evidence would be "i saw the needle go in her arm while at the dr office because I took her there". Then you can verify this is true via records and such. Just because there is a testimony doesn't make it "direct". They could be speculating on many things during their testimony.
Thank you for posting this because your "evidence" does not measure up to this definition. The best you've been able to put together is that people in her age range got the booster 89% of the time....or 94% of the time if we go with the CA stats. I have the witness testimony of her closest friends, her family, her agent, her doctors and her death certificate. Your "evidence" speaks to a general population but never mentions Mrs. White by name. In fact, if anything, given the amount of witness testimony otherwise your stats actually help prove my point because they say that it is entirely plausible that Mrs. White never had a booster since 11% or 6% of the population didn't receive it and we have the direct testimony of those closest to her.
Another question: Dont you still have to prove "direct" evidence. For example, if a chick calls the police and says you rapped her, are her words enough?
At last! Thanks for finally admitting it. This is not direct evidence. What I have provided is indeed direct evidence.
Not my stats. Mayo's. they say in CA people over the age of 65 are vaxed with 1 shot at 99.98% and more than 1 shot at 94%.
