"MOE" it is very clear your position on this and how you feel evidence and facts of the case should have little impact on someone's level of guilt. So by your logic, jurors should skip all the lack of evidence, conflicting testimonies and convict based on a separate case's testimony from a witness? It is interesting to say the least your thought process and logic. Again, people with your mindset need not have the law and proceedings take place therefore a trial should not exist in the first place. Again, extremely telling argument and opinion. Bottom line is, a situation such as this does not appeal to your train of thought as the entire Justice system should be bypassed, arguments are mute and conviction should be made based on past theories and statements in general as opposed to factual information supported by, discovery and testimony displayed pre and during trial. That is your view and you are entitled to it. As I said no one is here to convince one side one way or another. The purpose of the journalist was to lay out the FACTS and have OPEN-MINDED, unbiased people review and digest.