[Westbrook]

> I can hear you now at the OJ trial. “If you weren’t
> there, you must acquit.” Brilliant. Why hasn’t anyone
> else thought of this?

Ah, I see.

Conjecture based on fanciful assumptions of what may have occured in the distant past is as good as hard DNA evidence taken from a virtually contemporaneous event.

As you wish, but not a very brilliant analog.

[ketsu]

Ah, I see.

Conjecture based on fanciful assumptions of what may have occured in the distant past is as good as hard DNA evidence taken from a virtually contemporaneous event.

As you wish, but not a very brilliant analog.

Uuuum... do you know anything about how researchers arrive at these "fanciful assumptions"?

[js1138]

Conjecture based on fanciful assumptions of what may have occured in the distant past is as good as hard DNA evidence taken from a virtually contemporaneous event.

Interesting parallel, since the same reasoning that assigns parenthood and kinship in court cases is evidence of kinship among all living things.