> existence of doubt is proof of invalidity of the said doubt
That's not what was written at all, and you've made an extremely uncharitable interpretation of their statement to come to the response you did.
Ultimately, the parent poster wasn't saying this is proof of invalidity, they were saying it was one potential piece of evidence. Your conflation of a small point of evidence as "total proof" is where I think you've been relatively uncharitable to the parent poster.
Also, their point wasn't that any doubt existed. Their point was that the level of doubt for this type of crime is often relatively higher than for some other types of crimes. This would make it slightly less effective at the alleged purpose, therefore it should slightly lower our confidence in the hypothesis that this was done as a character assassination.
Neither of the parent posters points were absolutes, but you took them to be. It's about the relative level of doubt being slightly larger, and that results in a small lowering of our confidence.
That's not what was written at all, and you've made an extremely uncharitable interpretation of their statement to come to the response you did.
Ultimately, the parent poster wasn't saying this is proof of invalidity, they were saying it was one potential piece of evidence. Your conflation of a small point of evidence as "total proof" is where I think you've been relatively uncharitable to the parent poster.
Also, their point wasn't that any doubt existed. Their point was that the level of doubt for this type of crime is often relatively higher than for some other types of crimes. This would make it slightly less effective at the alleged purpose, therefore it should slightly lower our confidence in the hypothesis that this was done as a character assassination.
Neither of the parent posters points were absolutes, but you took them to be. It's about the relative level of doubt being slightly larger, and that results in a small lowering of our confidence.