[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

David - don't even try to figure out what he is saying.