lol ok
I’ve posted yours, you post mine.
i don't know what i've mine you've posted.
if you're asking why i don't believe that you are impartial it's because as soon as a woman discusses her memories of kav, you're all "actually, false memories are surprisingly common, ..." but you've not mentioned so much as a caveat as to the likelihood that a perpetually drunk man would recall any of his specific drunken escapades 30 years later and what that suggests regarding the credibility of kav's denials. and because when anyone mentions his frequent lies, you jump in with "actually, it's surprisingly difficult to convict of perjury, ..." and most of all because you argue that it is appropriate to prevent investigation of the women's allegations by nonpartisan, professional investigators.