Ahh.. thank you. Someone gets it. You know how many times I have seen someone say.. "but the prosecutor must have some solid evidence, b/c he went forward with the charges. So Kobe must have done it."
I keep asking: "Has a prosecutor never pursued a case on flimsy evidence?"
People keep forgetting that prosecutors could have unpure motives, just as the alleged victim, the accused, the reporter, the "friend" or any other human connected to the story may have. Yet so many simply accept that the prosecutor is pure in motive, precise in judgement and flawless in making a decision about whether to pursue a case or not.
I have no idea what happened and all the stories aren't changing my mind much. I knew they would come and I knew that they may or may not be true.
The stories aren't changing many minds either from what I see. They simply bolster a preconceived opinion based on existing bias or they get ignored or explained away. Those whose bias is strengthened simply get louder when their theory is supported, or explain quietly when the story seems to hurt their case.
It amazes me that more people do not intelligently admit that they don't know.