Quote
waterfield
1) Listen to what the prosecutor's opening stmt and other "reports" in the media and come to all kinds of opinion, etc. None of which is actual evidence presented in a trial.
2) No way can one make any informed opinion on guilt or innocence unless they are present in the courtroom and actually listening to the real evidence as a juror would do (hopefully)
I'm in the second category.
All true, BUT. Often in sexual assault cases there's a tendency to question the victim's perspective, before any real courtroom stuff is presented and considered by the jury. Often after too.
It's just a cultural tendency.
I agree though. This trial can go a couple of different ways, and even then we all have to live with the fact that we may have a verdict but not necessarily "the truth."
Setting that aside, a different issue comes up when people spin hypotheticals that put Rath in a presumably positive light. As I said, that's an old thing with cases like this. Sometimes it can go this far (not saying it did here)--the alleged victim is guilty until proven innocent.
...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2019 08:40PM by zn.
