What’s the value of me doing that, when the case has been prosecuted and was argued in all instances of appellate court literally to death? You can read court opinions, they are plentiful in information, and do not suffer from elementary logic errors.
You made at least two claims: " it prevented lying activists from freeing an obviously guilty"
(1) activists are lying
(2) obviously guilty
If you cannot rebut the points made, the second claim is not supported. The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case
If you cannot point out the specific lies, your first claim is then also unsupported.
You seem to have started in a rebuttal when stating: "and do not suffer from elementary logic errors." Perhaps you can demonstrate those logic errors? (Preferably with full quotes from the article)
I am certainly very specifically interested in the lies you believe to have been conveyed.
My claims are supported by the arguments made by the prosecution in all instances of the appellate court, the arguments that jury and the appellate courts found convincing. Even the dissenting SCOTUS justices would not argue that the guy actually is innocent.
Again, can you explain to me what’s the value of me reiterating the same stuff that’s in the court documents? Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
Okay, it is: "The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case" vs "are supported by the arguments made by the prosecution in all instances of the appellate court"
Do you find the points raised in the article not compelling? Perhaps you could specifically address at least the point raised that the witness testimony was biased?
Still waiting for the specific lies.
The value in at least pointing out the lies is so that your claim of lies can begin to be supported - that we can see at least what you claim to be a lie. The article seems to be relatively expository. Not only would something have to be false, it would have to be knowingly so. Calling someone a liar, IMO is very significant. It should be therefore supported.
> Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
My opinion there is kinda immaterial. If we did go down that road, I'd have to ask you to precisely define most of those terms. Which seems like a tedious exercise, and again my 2 cents on that question seems immaterial. If you are perhaps implying I am an activist, I would not consider myself as such. I do try to practice skepticism. I also sincerely and greatly value _truth_.
So, perhaps we can start with what you claim is a lie?
