I agree, but there’s always that possibility... which is moot, because anything is possible. What I’m saying is the author went on a needless rant as it applies to the context of this UNIQUE case—- we obviously weren’t there (duh; a given), the article relies on the truth (again, she even admits there’s a paradox…

All of this sounds great, but only the truth is relevant (as you pointed out,) so why the unnecessary narrative, expatiating the rudiments of DM? Is this an opportunistic time to discuss a generalized context of DM: you know, notwithstanding who victimized whom in this UNIQUE case, why not bring about awareness? I get…