Originally posted by Elamarna
View Post
And all along, it is instead a question of you suggesting alternative innocent explanations that have nothing at all in the way of evidence going for them.
That´s what I dislike. When somebody gets on his high horses and calims factual superiority, then that someone needs to be a lot better equipped for that trip than you are.
Example: Lechmere disagreed with Mizen about what he had said on the murder night. If Mizen was right, it furthermore applies that what Lechmere said, was a perfectly shaped phrasing to take him past the police unsearched.
Does that fact go away because you come up with the idea that Mizen could have lied? No. That is speculation only, which tells it apart from the facts of the case. It is of very limited value until proven.
See what I mean?
Leave a comment: