[AaronInCarolina]

The appellate courts looked at the facts which were presented at the trial court level and reached the conclusion that the facts presented clear and convincing evidence in support of the trial court decision. This is a pretty high standard, and one not taken lightly.

I'm no legal expert. That is not my field. But the understanding that I have is that the apellate courts can only look at the FACTS that were ALLOWED into evidence by GREER. I think you may be mistaken. (Or I may be. It's just what I heard explained on TV by someone who I presumed to be an expert at law.)

[Terriergal]

only look at the FACTS that were ALLOWED into evidence by GREER

UNBELIEVEABLE! That's nonsense! HE only allowed what he wanted in order to convict her of her 'crime.'

[Cboldt]

But the understanding that I have is that the apellate courts can only look at the FACTS that were ALLOWED into evidence by GREER.

Sort of. They look at the trial record. Naturally, that is a view of the evidence allowed, but also, if evidence was WRONGLY EXCLUDED, the trial result can be overturned. See also, e.g., bringing DNA evidence into old cases to exonerate convicted criminals.