The Chief Justice studied these things seriously. To be honest, he believed they were genuine.
But the problem was that, as evidence, these things were still somewhat weak.
Just as code words were unsuitable for securing a conviction, this note and newspaper could not serve as direct, valid key evidence.
If the person who issued the instructions insisted that he had merely written down a meaningless string of numbers, the court would most likely accept his explanation.
They could not claim that a number constituted key evidence simply because it had no clearly indicated meaning.
Even if it had indeed produced the result people wanted, what if it had been a coincidence?
"Beyond reasonable doubt" was the spirit of federal justice. Sometimes it protected many vulnerable groups, but sometimes it also protected criminals.
Yet compared with the protection it offered vulnerable groups, even a few shortcomings seemed acceptable! The judge put the items down and gestured for the Prosecutor to continue presenting evidence or questioning the defendant and witness.
The Chief Prosecutor appropriately produced another piece of evidence: proof of the movement of funds.
Because the case involved an alleged attempt to assassinate the Federal President, the banks had been extremely cooperative as well. Thus, everyone could see the entire process of a large sum of money, from the beginning of its movement to the end.
This was extremely important evidence. Compared with the first two pieces, which seemed more direct from an ordinary person's perspective, it was more effective and even more crucial!
Every movement of the funds was displayed in meticulous detail—
"Mr. Minister of the Security Department provided us with an Anonymous Account he used during this 'job.' With the banks' cooperation, we traced two more Anonymous Accounts upward and discovered that the money had come from