re: #690 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

And I assume that since these threads are so old, you can’t actually back this up.

Sticking to the current thread, you’re saying you wanted to dodge the question because you’re tired of seeing Zimmerman’s inconsistencies used to assert that he was lying about everything. Given that this hasn’t happened in this thread, even if it did in the past, that seems a little bit of a defensive answer.

Wanting to dodge a question that you’re admitting shows inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s account, rather than acknowledging those and dealing with them, doesn’t reflect well on your claim to just want to look at the evidence in a skeptical fashion.

Point of fairness, that’s me. I’m applying the courtroom principle of an ‘impeached witness’.

A witness who has lied about things that can be verified cannot be trusted about the things that cannot be verified.

Because Zimmerman has a number of things about which he has lied, anything he says about things which cannot be verified must be treated with skepticism and doubt.