|
An observation:
Those who say he's guilty typically say it like this:
"He's a guilty pervert who should be put to death. No! An easy death is too good for him, let's chop his balls off and let him bleed to death."
Whereas those who say he's innocent: (Apart from a few nutters)
"There's no good evidence to say he's guilty, I'm going to stick with innocent."
Also, very few people have had access to all the evidence that the trial jury has had access to.
I'm convinced that the only reason people say he's guilty is because they don't like him as a person and want something bad to happen to him. There's pretty much no balanced reasoning going on here and certainly no knowledge of what actually went on. You can't imprison someone based on what *might* have happened, if you do the legal system falls apart instantly.
|