That is about the gentlest 'rude' comment I have ever seen. He was trying to be polite, as you seem to want to argue the case, but haven't bothered to gain any knowledge of the details of the case.
I.E. Why bother arguing something you know nothing about?
To learn. Is there something I posted about the scenario that is wrong ? Those who believe he did it were kind enough to let me know there problems with it and I was able to answer them to their satisfaction. I have read Westerfields version of events, as well as a number of other documents from which to determine the above.
Are my opinions only valid if they encompass everything on ever written ?
FWIW, this is the first time the repsonse to me by the side that beleives Westerfield didn't do it is to claim I a ignorant rather than to point out a flaw. I wonder why that is ? If it were easy to specify a flaw I would assume someone on that side would mention it rather than doing a complete list of documents ?
Which is easier? to say you are wrong because of XY and Z or to throw the entire list of FR links on a post ?