It is possible to argue against all types of evidence. However, imagine you were on a jury and you listened to all his evidence. Would you believe him or not?
Does his story make sense or is it riddled with inconsistencies? Is his evidence way out there or have many other people said similar things in the past?
Assuming you decide to believe him, would you be troubled by the fact that some in the financial world thought it was OK to ritually kill children for their own gratification or not?
It is possible to argue against all types of evidence. However, imagine you were on a jury and you listened to all his evidence. Would you believe him or not?
Does his story make sense or is it riddled with inconsistencies? Is his evidence way out there or have many other people said similar things in the past?
Assuming you decide to believe him, would you be troubled by the fact that some in the financial world thought it was OK to ritually kill children for their own gratification or not?