sadly, we're at the mercy of talking heads and media reporters.
Talking heads, not present in court, rely on input from news sources who hash over and edit what has actually transpired in the courtroom. They hone in on one or two statements out of a full day of testimony and twist and turn it to their point of view.
Reporters comments outside the courtroom are limited to one to two minute soundbites for live-feed and then the talking head frenzy begins.
Guess the only way to be totally informed is to either attend the trial or somehow read the transcripts.
(stepping down from the soapbox...)
I am used to the trial televised, important witnesses taped, transcripts!...I want facts, not opinions and soundbites only...I am familiar with Scott's interviews, old media reports(some inaccuracies and speculation...rumors...I have read some of the prelim transcripts, read about the number of Amber calls.
I KNOW what he had with him in his car when he was arrested, I know the testimony of the cell phone call location(10:08)on the 24th and the dog's arrival on the neighbor's drive(10:18) That leaves a 10 minute window for Laci to finish mopping, change clothes, get the dog on a leash and get abducted...I am secure right now in my opinion of his guilt, just not in the jury's verdict!
DD - perhaps a better term for these TH's is talking peabrains!! There are a few good ones but most of the networks keep digging up these Horrid excuses for Lawyers.
HEEHEE... YEP.....
Agree and they bring their bias with them as they interpret what they believe they heard. This is our justice system at work and we should be privy to see it all and not have cameras banned because of a Judge's whim.