Zn, implications matter. You don't need "direct evidence"

ZN, the standard of evidence you are demanding isn't even required in a criminal trial.

The unmistakable Implications in what he and McGuiness said were very strong, which is why Fisher has taken flak from just about every corner.

Other than for yourself, I'm not sure I've heard anyone else defend Fisher so vigorously.

Feel free to reply, of course.

But as for me, I think I've exhausted everything I want to contribute to the debate.