mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > Michael Cash wrote:
>
> > And that conclusion would still be mistaken. Even a review of 2001 posts show I do not
> > promote guilty until proven innocent, but guilty because they did it, or innocent
> > because they did not do it.
>
> ...with magic fairy dust (presumably) determining which is which.

No, what happened is the sole determinant of what happened. Determining which is which is
only necessary in cases nobody knows, or for those who don't know.

And as I have said from years before, this should be nothing new or surprising to you,
trials are useful for that.

But a trial still does not decide facts.