If you read the article, you would understand that is nonsense. The law simply says that to be evidence they have to be specific, be relevant, and/or include n

If you read the article, you would understand that is nonsense. The law simply says that to be evidence they have to be specific, be relevant, and/or include non-publicly known information. Another commenter brought up cash, and they’re right. By the current rules, if the police in Reno had an unsolved murder in which the victim was shot, they could put Johnny Cash on trial and use “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die” as being hard evidence and an admission of guilt. Obviously there are reasons that the Reno police are not going to arrest Johnny cash on murder charges, but the example is completely true.