All that is great for showing she clearly did something wrong. But it doesn’t prove a premeditated deliberate act of murder.
All the effort I’ve seen to trash anybody the target is the jury, not the TV audience that disagrees with them. There’s nothing trashing in that sentence you keep quoting. It doesn’t say anything bad about anybody, it’s just pointing out that the TV audience and the jury have 2 different sets of information. The other category presented is the jury. It’s a simple comparison and contrast sentence, there’s the TV audience and the jury, and then it lists the information the TV audience has which was specifically forbidden the jury.
Sorry but it’s all in your head. There’s not a word in that sentence that says only simpletons wouldn’t agree with the verdict. You’re just plain being paranoid on that front, inserting something that’s not there.
Thanks for the response.
Why post that descriptive sentence in the article if not to frame the people who disagree with the verdict and the jury?
What would be the point of placing that information up front, if not to influence people with the content?
It was unnecessary if not to frame the dissenters in some manner. You can’t possibly think those comments were flattering to the public who disagreed.
I know you’re convinced I’m being paranoid, but by dismissing any insult there, you’re saying that was placed in the article for no reason whatsoever.
Wordsmiths don’t do that.
Yes I know. You don't know what it could have possibly been that she might have done wrong.
I support you in that belief. I don't agree with it, but I do believe that is your take on it.
It's not my take on it.