Yeah, but he said he was going to do "research".
Then he snuck back.
I'm only wondering if he actually intends to support the lies he has been repeating, or if his claims of research were just yet another "misstatement."
Do you mean in the same sense as when one of the defendants in the Dover case claimed under oath that he didn't know where the money for the ID text books came from, when in fact he had collected the money from his fellow church members and gave the check to his father, who then purchased the books?
;-)
Or, as the judge characterized their testimony in the case:
"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points." P. 105[emphasis added]