Reply #10: To say that

[Joe Chi Minh]

"Reasons to believe it occurred in Florida in 2000 and, with less certainty in 2004 are outlined" can only mean that they have not read Conyer's texts or the overwhelmingly copious volume of material on DU by such people as Autorank and TIA, and are therefore writing about a subject for which they are extremely ill-prepared; or they are knaves and/or fools.

They also seem to overstate the weight given by the courts to circumstantial evidence. Anyway that caveat is academic, as there is abundant direct evidence. Anyway the lad who murdered his wife was convicted almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, I believe.

Their constant tentativeness in the face of the massive evidence of all kinds is like being coy about the noxious effects of an H-bomb. It doesn't make them sound like serious people, but like dilettantes out of their depth.