I admit I’m a little baffled. I’m new to this, but I didn’t perceive anything in the previous commenter’s post that appeared to be un-civil or to be aimed at shutting down conversation. I’ve read your timelines, and they are fantastic. I applaud your work. But I’m not sure under what conditions one may participate in a conversation about this case. I have been scolded for simply questioning the provenance of all the insider information dispensed by a commentator. And now this person above has been scolded for voicing disagreement and for “arguing on the internet” and being too vocal. I’m not sure I understand what the rules are here. How on earth did the previous commentator “shut down” conversation? FWIW, I was about to post about how from what I can tell, Ryan’s GBI statement appears to share many characteristics with false confessions I’ve encountered in my career, but I don’t want to be accused of arguing on the internet.