@ Tecshare,
We were talking about who has the burden of
proof, not whether the evidence presented
was absolute proof or speculative.
Switching the point of argument is a weak
tactic that will not work on me.
You keep saying you want proof, and not
theories and speculation. Where is the
proof that WC has any hand carving skill whatsoever,
let alone being a 'master carver' ?
Since now you have decided we are talking about burden of proof, who normally has the burden of proof? The accused or the accuser? In any place where a person is guilty until proven innocent it is usually a pretty big totalitarian hellhole.
This is not switching the point of argument, it is pointing out the fact he was FIRST JUDGED GUILTY, then everyone demanded proof of his innocence. No proof of his guilt was ever presented. End of story.
WHERE IS THE PROOF HE DID SOMETHING WRONG? IT DOESN'T EXIST, if it did it would have been brought up by now somewhere in between all of the theories and accusations.