I don’t want to accuse you of moving the goalposts, but you do seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. If person A says B punched him and B says nothing, then I have reason to believe A. But if B denies punching A, and B has no bruises or other evidence of being punched, how do I know which person is telling the truth?
Besides, I am not arguing about legal thingies. I am arguing about what I personally am to believe, whether I am going to accept A’s word or B’s, and only assuming all other is equal.
Again, you are introducing more evidence than simply what A said and what B said. And again, I feel the need to say that I am not making an argument about what the court should decide — and why should I? Right now we are only talking about two statements made to the press.
I simply take umbrage at the idea that giving people the benefit of doubt is so wrong. I am not a prosecutor nor am I a judge, so I can afford to be tolerant and forgiving.
