You asked for “a few choice examples of overwhelming evidence” and specified you’d be most convinced by “physical or recorded evidence” I then provided you with exactly that.
Sure, and I linked to some evidence calling the strength of that evidence into question, not denying that the evidence existed. Certainly the evidence you cited should make us somewhat more inclined to think Mumia did it, my point was just that it may not be a good candidate for the kind of “overwhelming evidence” that Professor59 was talking about.
In the criminal trial, yes. In the civil trial, O.J. was found liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown.
Do you think this is relevant to why Professor59 made that comment about OJ? Again, from the context it seems he/she was talking about whether OJ actually committed the crime, independent of legal judgments. People are capable of rationally evaluating the strength of evidence for who committed a crime independent of what was decided by the legal system, no? (For example, do you think that since OJ wasn’t found liable for Nicole Brown’s death but only for her battery, there can be no good basis for believing he very likely killed her?)
I didn’t call you or anybody else names.
“Name-calling” can refer to arguments as well as people. Referring to certain arguments as “asinine, prevaricating dissembling and stridently absurd protestations” is not a rational counter-argument, and it does not identify any actual flaw in the argument/evidence being put forward.
The burden of proof is on the writer of that heavily biased essay of dissembling irrelevance.
The writer provided what I thought was reasonable evidence that the prosecution’s ballistics case was not that strong. If we are interested in making our own rational judgments as to the likelihood Mumia did it, it’s not rational to refuse to consider any evidence that goes against the prosecution’s case short of definitive “proof” of his innocence (I would say rationally evaluating evidence basically comes down to an informal version of Bayesian inference, where instead of definitively putting yourself on the “side” of any particular hypothesis, you assign subjective senses of the probabilities of different hypotheses and try to fairly update these probabilities in light of each new piece of evidence or argument). But perhaps you are not interested in rational weighing of evidence pro and con, but just making a rhetorical case.
(Also, on the subject of George Fassnacht, please see the edit I made to my previous comment, made while you were writing this one)
