Replies

According to your theory - no one who is not actually present during the testimony can ever have an opinion on the outcome of a case.

Interesting theory. I'll bet the judiciary just love folks like you, because then they can rarely be criticized for clearly outrageous decisions.

Me, I have a little intelligence, common sense and some insight. And I am pretty comfortable calling this one for what it is.

Those who want to stick their head in the sand and say "I just don't know, there must have been a good reason for what happened..." are welcome to.

Just don't start screaming for help when it's YOU in the docket.

You are a bit reactionary -- are you not? All I am saying is that I have no idea what the facts are in this case. (Frankly, neither do many posters here.)

Yes -- it sounds bad based on the limited description provided. I agree, how could I not. But, sounding that bad makes an inquisitive mind want to know all the facts and circumstances.

As for theories -- I don't think I espoused one. Having said that, there is simply no question that a person surfing the web and reading postings about a case can almost never have the same knowledge of the facts and evidence, and law, as the jurors or fact-finders in a given case. That's not a theory -- that's reality.

As for being in the Docket. One is actually "on" the Docket. Having tried exceptionally large civil cases on civil litigation, having witnessed and clerked on virtually every type of domestic and criminal matter -- including death penalty cases, I too have some intelligence, common sense, and insight. That is why I like to know the facts, the evidence, the law, the charge, the standards, etc, before I comment too much on a post provides only a base description of a crime.

What were that actual charges? Who testified against him? What did he admit? What does the law say about protection of the unborn? What does the law say about aggravating factors? I have no idea -- but I can't tell you how crazy this case is without that information. To do so, I would merely be spouting an opinion based my own ignorance, and a gut reaction. There is nothing illegal about that -- but it does not make for very illuminating discussion.

That's my point.