This is a great example of the type of critical looking at the evidence. The words that are used should be examined closely - especially official / legal words. There should be no reading between the lines if written properly.
Here we have "no gender based..." of Tom and his wife. Nothing mentioned about whether there was other people who did were involved in that type of activity, nor whether the two individuals were involved in other types of activity.
Basically, legal speak only addresses a specific thing. The objective is not to uncover the whole truth about an event, but to reveal only as much as necessary.
In short, the report on the investigation should not if done properly comment on anything outside of it - even if evidence of those things are found.
Thus, looking at it - it gives no evidence of other things.
> Here we have "no gender based..." of Tom and his wife. Nothing mentioned about whether there was other people who did were involved in that type of activity, nor whether the two individuals were involved in other types of activity.
Great point. I didn't notice that phrase, but now that I think about it, you're right.
Here we have "no gender based..." of Tom and his wife. Nothing mentioned about whether there was other people who did were involved in that type of activity, nor whether the two individuals were involved in other types of activity.
Basically, legal speak only addresses a specific thing. The objective is not to uncover the whole truth about an event, but to reveal only as much as necessary.
In short, the report on the investigation should not if done properly comment on anything outside of it - even if evidence of those things are found.
Thus, looking at it - it gives no evidence of other things.