I realize that the VDAs are bending over backwards to spin David Faulkner's testimony, but he made it clear that the bugs tell a different story......the
If one takes all of Faulkner's testimony in total, combined with all of the other evidence presented, no "spin" is necessary to hold an opinion such as I hold. (And I am not saying the opposite conclusion cannot be held honorably)
And I don't lend credence to arguments that are buttressed with personal attacks such as calling one a "VDA" or telling someone they are not ethical enough to be a good juror.
Sorry, but VDA happens to fit some people. The very same people who want to cast every negative light possible on DW's every breath are willing to give a pass and an "oh well" to a couple who are undoubtedly to this day putting their kids at risk.
As for ethical, that is your word; not mine. I said I hoped you never had to be judged in the manner you appear to be judging this defendant.
You have him convicted and sentenced and the defense has not even rested. Guess what? That does not an honest juror make. Call it ethics or whatever you want. If the shoe fits..........