Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kahn
Martian,
After your reply, I went back and reread the entire excerpts of the case much more closely and admit .. I stand corrected. I did misread the part where he was NOT convicted of destroying evidence .. my bad .. I honestly thought it said he WAS convicted. Thank goodness I'm not this guy's attorney eh? My only defense is that it was real late when I read this initially and my eyesight ain't what it used to be.
That being said, this whole thing smells fishy to me, and I'm still waiting for the rest of the story.
Regardless, I'll make it a point to be more accurate in the future when replying to things on this forum. Thank you for pointing that out.
|
If I'm being honest, my gut instinct tells me the same thing. The pieces just don't add up. On the other hand, gut instinct isn't grounds for conviction, and given that we're clearly not seeing the whole picture here definitely shouldn't be trusted implicitly. We know there's more to the story here than what's been given to us, and really that's the only thing we can say with any certainty.
I'm not overly worried about the individual case anyway. It's the larger implications of this that concern me.