Hacker News Reader

I suspect there are few real-world examples where "you could just say X" actually works... but in this case the story is that a random "weed dealer" killed not a random person, but a specific person known to the "weed purchaser"?

Who would believe that story?

View on HN

How does prosecution prove the payment was connected to the hitman and not the weed?

Seems like they'd need to seize the hitman's digital communications, at which point the jig is probably already up.

It's "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond all doubt."

Evidence.

A grand jury must look through the evidence and conclude that there is enough there to possibly result in a conviction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com