- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,759
- Reaction score
- 26,048
The classic appeal to authority fallacy.Wouldn't except less from shertards defending a rapist. Shertards know more than a 12 person jury and a judge who were actually at the case.
Why is it that the evidence or testimony that compelled the jurors and judge is so difficult to reproduce? We live in an information age. Nobody has insisted he is innocent. Those of us who have raised an eyebrow have merely highlighted the truth that our justice system is supposed to presume innocence. Why is it so difficult to summarize the compelling points? The concise summaries aren't exactly compelling. I haven't gone so far as to read the full transcripts of the accusers. Have you? If you have, and therefore have intimate knowledge of what the judge or jury found so compelling in it, perhaps you could Cliffs it for the rest of us.