And I'm not interested in "arguing." I don't know for sure if this man is guilty or not. All I know is he's not being allowed to present evidence that appears to exonerate him.
You know, if you would take the time to actually read the facts about things before reaching your conclusions, you'd probably find your entire viewpoint of life would change about a lot of things.
As far as this case goes, you would realize that you couldn't be overpowered by hearsay and innuendo. You would be overpowered with all the unanswered questions that Monaco is hiding.
Who, exactly, is the source of all those items listed in post #118?
Who, exactly, is it that says that Monaco is hiding something?
Is there anything at all for me to hang my hat on with regard to giving Maher a benefit of the doubt? Anything solid at all? Or does all the information about "exonerating evidence", "missing evidence", drugs and torture, and all the rest come from Maher's camp?
Thanks!
A lot of people have read the facts as presented by you and others, I did. They did not ring believable to me from the get go. What Ted is saying now does.