op eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chriso's narrative must reads which establish the fact of the matter when they do work for chriso's narrative court appointed forensic ballistics experts are fringe kooks also side note i actually added text which stated discretly that the libel conviction had been overturned by a higher court but that was rv'd such a statement of fact is a little too stark for the article campers' tastes such things have to be insulated and obscured by intricately parsed verbosity which in the end gives the impression that nothing was decided in the court case at all the operative definition here for npov violation after all is not chriso's pov