A suggestion for those Theron Fuller is bugging about DIRECT
EVIDENCE, and whose opinions he tends to dismiss for lack thereof...you're
dancing a dance you can't win. You should be asking what CONSTITUTES
"direct evidence." Insofar as I know, there are only two forms of direct
evidence: eyewitness accounts at the time (viz: me), or physical
evidence in the form of documents, DNA reports, fingerprints at the scene
of the crime, and so forth. In short, you're being asked to provide
material that simply does not exist.

This is an old debate tactic, which works only so long as you don't
ask the person to define the "direct evidence" in question.

jms