Of course I think he did it, and deserved to be convicted, but... the verdict surprises me because there really wasn't enough evidence. It was all circumstancial.
I'll have to raise the dissent here. I don't have a particular opinion about his guilt or innocence, but I'm not comfortable that he was convicted based on entirely circumstantial evidence. How can that be beyond reasonable doubt?
no subject
I don't know about elsewhere, but since it's local, it's been in the papers almost everyday. I'm so glad it's over.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
So yes, >_> it is. I'm sooooo slow. This is what happens when you don't watch or listen to the media.
no subject
Le sigh.