Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven.
My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.
The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.