Neither Dan nor I argued with his points
I simply characterized them based on my initial mistaken assumption that we were talking about the case already tried rather than the one coming up, and then amended my characterization based on that. I didn’t say he was wrong about anything. I said, perhaps the first three items will be resolved by evidence and testimony presented in the trial.
You’re the one who miss characterized what he said [Post edited by 111Balz at 03/25/2024 3:47PM]
|
(
In response to this post by Los Angeles Hoo)
Posted: 03/25/2024 at 3:47PM