[drjimmy]

That is a huge leap and one not supported by my comments.

Well, then, let's look at your comments in their entirety.

"That is the Judge speaking." So because a judge says it, it must be valid.

"Since he has no ax to grind in this case and saw all of the evidence I would tend to go along with his decision." Since it is unlikely that you know this judge personally or were in the courtroom during the case, you have decided solely because he is a judge that he has no ax to grind, that he saw all the evidence in the case, and that his decision is valid.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[Michael.SF.]

Well, then, let's look at your edited comments:

"That is the Judge speaking." So because a judge says it, it must be valid.

Note I am referring to ONE specific judge. You extended the comment to "a Judge", any Judge. That is the first leap you made.

you have decided solely because he is a judge that he has no ax to grind

-- No. I decided because he is THE judge of this case, not just a random Judge.

I would tend to go along with his decision. -- Note the use of the word "tend", meaning hearing no evidence or objections against his opinion, I would lean towards believing he made the right decision.

you have decided ... that he saw all the evidence in the case,-- Well since he was the Judge in this case it stands to reason that he saw all the evidence doesn't it?

I note also the following:

1) He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

2) The article does not mention any dispute over the sentence handed down or the lowered charge (vs. murder).

3) THE Judge refers to this as an "accident", that wording is not mentioned as being in question.

Unless you have any evidence to support anything else I will stand by my statement, which you have misinterpreted.