Ive never really had reason to believe this was anything other than what was reported. Sure, there were some anomalies, things that didnt quite make sense in the optics, but I just kinda blew them off as a sort of fog of war type thing. There still are problems with this narrative, I believe, but he does make some points that, if I were a juror, would not allow me to convict based upon the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt. Ill leave my own observations and doubts out of the equation for a moment. What say you?
Posted on: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:01:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015