[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 4:34:40 PM
I see your point, but even when one is absolutely convinced about something, the door to the possibility that there might be an alternative explanation should be left open.
For example, you say that either you or Wagner are right regarding Jill Shively's claim that she saw O.J. at the intersection. Could be that you're both wrong or both partially right. She could've saw someone in the Bronco at the time, but it might've been someone OTHER than O.J. Who can say she wasn't pressured to modify the truth just a bit?
Given what McKinnon reported, it could've been A.C. (McKinnon reported that he was warned to keep his trap shut).
If so, you're right that it couldn't have been O.J. and Waner could be right that Shively definitely saw someone in a Bronco. Both conclusions are not mutually exclusive.
In such situations, we should discuss the alternative possibilities at the next level.
Getting any discussion to this next level is difficult, especially when dealing with someone like Junot. He has some interesting conclusions, but he's not willing to consider alternative explanations.
Ego over evidence? Not productive.