Whether they presumed it or not, just because they found it hard to prove, don't automatically mean they were wrong in their conclusions. You seem to be saying that because they couldn't be 100% sure about things, that they were wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence that they actually were wrong, you just want to cast doubt on their conclusions to try and win by default. That's a classic CT ploy and it dioesn't float about here. If you want to show why they were wrong and the bullet didn't pass through him then fine, show your evidence for it, but merely pointing out that they were entirely sure isn't good enough to prove diddly.
|