Armstronglivs wrote:
As I said, the same stuff you've argued for the years since the verdict came out. It was lunatic then and still is. For those of us who support the outcome your daft views are agreeably irrelevant and without consequence to the decision.
And yet another response completely void of specific and concrete evidence.
It's not that I don't support the outcome -- that is the wrong goalpost -- I don't support a process that determines outcomes based on presumptions with ambiguous evidence, when not completely lacking evidence.
It is irrelevant to me what your "view" is, if you are unable to support your "view" with evidence.