Probably the first evidence was that the coastlines of Africa and South America seem to match up like puzzle pieces, and landscape features on the two continents also match.
That the continents seemed to fit together almost perfectly, and if you had a map that had the resources marked on the continents and you put the continents together the resources would all be in groups next to each other.answ2. But the pangaea supercontinent was just the last in a conjectured series of super-continent followed by break-up. Perhaps at least three cycles.
DNA evidence found at a crime scene can help solve a criminal investigation by linking the suspect to the scene of the crime.
The Suspect Terrane theory posits that many terranes, or small pieces of the Earth's lithosphere, make up each of the continents. These terranes move over millions of years due to sea floor spreading and cause the formation of the continents at large.
Chemical evidence refers to the use of chemical analysis techniques to identify, characterize, and analyze evidence in criminal investigations. This can involve identifying substances, determining their composition, or linking evidence to a suspect or crime scene based on unique chemical signatures. Chemical evidence is commonly used in forensic investigations to provide crucial information and support legal proceedings.
A good sentence would be, the implication is that the boy is the one who hid the money. This works because an implication is a conclusion that is drawn but has not been stated.
The shapes of those continents, too many looked like they fitted together.
That the continents seemed to fit together almost perfectly, and if you had a map that had the resources marked on the continents and you put the continents together the resources would all be in groups next to each other.answ2. But the pangaea supercontinent was just the last in a conjectured series of super-continent followed by break-up. Perhaps at least three cycles.
The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.
The evidence may not be sufficient to convict the suspect in the case.
when there is enough evidence to prove it
No, the suspect's admission to guilt does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence in the case.
If you have enough evidence.
The evidence that the suspect was at the scene of the crime includes eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage placing them at the location, and forensic evidence such as fingerprints or DNA linking them to the scene.
An example of indirect evidence is finding footprints near a crime scene that match the suspect's shoe size and style, but without directly linking the suspect to the crime. This evidence could suggest the suspect was present at the scene, but does not definitively prove their involvement in the crime.
The attorney's evidence prooved the suspect guilty of the crime.
f*** i dont know
Yes, If they are a suspect law enforcement has right to arrest any suspect in a crime with Provable Evidence.