Evidence. Believe It Or Don't.

[Sue U]

If five prosecutors each try 20 cases, and three of those prosecutors employ misconduct in one case each, you've got only 3 cases of misconduct out of 100 cases, yet more than half the prosecutors (60%) were willing to do it.

[Andrew D]

Do we really need to engage in a complex exegesis of the word "rare"?

I wrote:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence.

I also wrote:

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.

Lord Jim twisted that into:

... the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ....

That is not "the assertion". That has never been "the assertion".

What is in dispute is not "that it is what happens most of the time." That has never been what is in dispute.

Lord Jim has tried to make that the subject of the dispute -- and as anyone can see, he is still trying to make that the subject of the dispute -- but it is not.

As Sue U just put it, succinctly and correctly:

Not that it "happens most of the time," but that most prosecutors would do it if required to get the conviction.

(Emphasis added.)

Lord Jim has been making a false claim about what the dispute even is. He has been making that false claim from the beginning. He is still making that false claim.

If he disagrees with the claim that I have actually made, fine. He can disagree with anything he wants to disagree with.

But one might ask oneself something: Why has he relentlessly contended, and why does he still contend, that I made a claim which I did not make?

Why is he so desperate to turn what I posted into something which I did not post? What deep-seated need is driving that bus?

People will have to draw their own conclusions.