I agree it's completely meaningless as evidence. I suppose I'm just assuming they may question it if he hadn't completed it as a formality?
This is the foundation of his thought process since the time he posted here. He thinks if one thing is true, then the other must certainly be true. He's huge on the bandwagon, appeal to authority and false dilemma logical fallacies.
He would write articles on CSA and post them here asking for "feedback". But the only feedback he wanted was to correct a typo or for people to praise it. When folks called him out on faulty reasoning, he would quip: "Well I sent that to Candace Conti and her mother and THEY think it's great! I'll trust their viewpoint on this more so than yours, thank you. And you've had an axe to grind against me so you are only trying to discredit and attack"
So in his line of thinking, just because someone is a "defendant", then that automatically detracts from anything they might have to say in their defence.
Except when the accused is him.