All true, what you say. I have no quarrel.
The tone of the article, and knowledge of the character of the presiding judge, give me reason to restrain personal judgment.
I would rather the narrator stick to the facts....provide at least some evidentiary support......and let the truth speak for itself without ‘help’. :^)
I have attending trials for near 30 years. The article doesn’t ring of truth, in light of my experience. Cindy Brackett would never allow, nor involve herself as conspirator, in a trial as perverse as that described. I’ve seen some bad stuff. But this is just over the top hard to believe.
Without more....I reserve the right to believe the defendant is overzealous...beyond constitutional protection in his acts....or a real nutjob who adopted a cause to bless his lightweight violent proclivities.
I simply wish to advocate for truth.
Fair enough too. Your point is well taken about the sometimes over inflamed passions of crusaders for a cause.
Court proceedings aside it is no wonder that people do get inflamed passions when they can see Union thugs commit similar offenses and worse and the police turn a blind eye to it. That being said I have been embarrassed too many times to take sides in a story written by a group for it’s own purposes.
Cheers
Mel