shocking.
along with the discovery that folks will ignore the evidence in order to adhere to a narrative they wish to believe.
in the z case, the jury of mothers clearly deliberated with greater regard for the law and the evidence than the media. from a legal view, this was a simple case. the unanimity of the jury reflects that fact. the prosecution appealed to the hearts of the jurors because they had no material with which to work. the jury instruction told them to ignore emotional appeals.
from my viewpoint, i thank goodness for wikipedia which actually described the evidence in the z case leaving me to figure the sequence of events. if i was relying on the huffington post, say, i would be clueless.
if ever a person was defamed, z is that person. i think he's going to make hay with the media which keeps on doubling down.
eg the headline which read "not guilty but not innocent". everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. that headline was monstrous. calling such an outfit the media is a travesty.
| 