“Grossly misrepresenting another person’s argument, or simply lying about them, another big no-no.”
I was referring to this
If you were, you would have actually referenced it.
My post can be found here, in which I state:
To address those claiming that the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case had been discredited, it would be more accurate to say that the investigators and the prosecutor had been discredited for their unscrupulous tactics. If there really was evidence that a rape had occurred, then why withhold and destroy evidence?
This would more imply evidence which can be withheld and destroyed and not witness testimonies. I am curious where you got the impression I was referring to witness testimonies. You can step up or back down from an explanation as you wish, obviously, and I’ll learn something either way.