Without evidence, there was no crime

Many people continue to repeat the allegation the presidential election was stolen from Mr. Trump. If that is true, it would be a major crime and a serious attack on our democracy.

A crime of that magnitude would require many people in more than one state, to coordinate efforts, alter or destroy ballots, or do some other nefarious act while maintaining absolute secrecy.

Mr. Trump’s supporters might argue the evidence was so well hidden that, even with countless forensic-like searches, nothing was found; or, they might say the criminals did not leave any evidence.

The relationship of evidence to crime was first explained by Dr. Edmund Locard (1877-1966). He was a pioneer in forensic science and is famous for “Locard’s Exchange Principle” that basically states: “For every crime there will be evidence.” (Look it up.)

Evidence is based on provable information called facts. It is not based on opinion, or “there must have been” or hearsay, or the rantings of a pathological liar.

The problem is Mr. Trump believes he is the best and smartest in everything. He also believes it is impossible for him to be in second place or to lose.

I empathize with those who support Mr. Trump. They have a tough decision to make. After over 60 lawsuits that failed primarily due to a lack of evidence, do they continue to believe the lies or do they accept the fact that he fairly lost the election?

— Ole Quiberg, Chico