That won't stop those who haven't seen the evidence from ridiculing the decision of those who have.
Quote: "That won't stop those who haven't seen the evidence from ridiculing the decision of those who have."
What kind of ridiculous decision was this!!! There, happy.
I suspect that very few of us have even followed the case closely enough to summarize the evidence (as opposed to the allegations), let alone ridicule the verdict. One of the most difficult aspects of trial law is when the lawyers fall in love with their case and fail to view the evidence through the eyes of potential jurors. Maybe the evidence was never that strong to begin with or the judge made some rulings that limited the evidence or the trial team sucked like in the OJ Simpson and William Kennedy Smith cases or the jury just didn't like the prosecuting attorney or the evidence was too complicated for the jury to follow or any number of other reasons, including the innocence of the defendants.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616991/posts?page=26#26
You want to fight the war on jihadists like a lawyer. Everything that does not meet an evidentiary standard of provable "beyond a reasonable doubt" will not satisfy you. Unfortunately, when dealing with jihadists we may sometimes, even often, have to act without sufficient evidence to satisfy you. The alternative is much worse.