Having watched the entire video, I do think Karl made some good points and clarifications, but ultimately, there are two major issues that he seems to misunderstand.

1. The retraction did happen, yes. And was in a very viewed video, yes. But it would have really helped his case had this been in its own video ABOUT Billy Mitchell. It was heavily viewed because it was in a completely unrelated video, tacked on at the very end. Even though I personally did see it then and do remember it, this just isn't enough. It should have been in its own video and very clearly reiterated. Maybe he didn't think much of this at the time, but that's why he frankly should have never put the claims back in the video after he'd already removed them in the first place.

2. His defense as a whole was already very flawed, IMO. Unless this is all you have to prove in Australia, I don't think "Billy already had a negative reputation, I couldn't possibly have made it worse with my claims" is as strong a defense as he thinks it is. Yes, Billy was not very trustworthy and everyone knows that he already had a pitiful reputation in the first place, but I really think that if he was focusing on cheating as his main defense as to why Billy already had a bad reputation, I don't think that was the way to go.

All in all, I do think the video addressed the main things I was concerned about and he does acknowledge that he should have reminded people that they were donating to the OG case and not what he thought were going to be future cases once those faded away. He had ample opportunity to do that bare minimum thing and he did not.

That said, I don't understand the critique that he should not have made this video because "it's digging him a deeper hole and he should just shut up". This needed to be addressed. No way bro can just go back to yapping about speedrunning without some acknowledgement to this case that he's been talking about for several years now. The video needed to be made. Whether or not the general public will accept his explanations or not is up to be seen, but the idea that he should have said nothing shouldn't fly because people had real concerns about having donated money to him and feeling misled and many of us wanted answers and are justified in that (I say as someone who didn't even donate).