Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Don't forget that the prosecutor was newly born again. The investigators found a babe in Christ to humiliate. The documentary was a setup.
The prosecutor was no longer "newly born again" by the time of the interview. If I recall correctly, the man had already spent more than a couple of decades in prison by then. There's also the fact that the ...[text shortened]... pened to say what he said.
You repeatedly show how you draw the most nonsensical conclusions.[/b]
So adding more information after the fact is very clever.
From the OP we're told the prosecutor was born again just after the start of the trial. Then when was it that he said he was looking for a sign? Decades later, or immediately after his conversion at the start of the trial?
How long did the trial last? 3 months, six?
If the documentary was about "a team of investigators that seek to prove the innocence of those wrongfully convicted", then what's the point in including the information concerning the prosecutor's conversion?
And why did you and Rajk use that information to bash the church and Christians if the documentary was about something else?
Why did you pinpoint and post the part of the documentary that included the prosecutor's statements about his conversion and seeking a sign if the documentary "wasn't about Christianity", but was "about a team of investigators that seek to prove the innocence of those wrongfully convicted?"
Because it provided an opportunity and a platform to launch your church hating and Christian maligning agenda. That's why.