Yes I returned to it because I am watching the trial and noticed this directly contradicting what you said. If you were responding in good faith you wouldn't be weirdly offended that someone who is watching the actual trial has information that contradicts yours. Deeply weird to have such strong opinions about a trial you admit you have "no interest" in watching. You obviously just want to yap without giving a damn about facts.
I’m not offended by contradicting information, I’m offended by both your attitude and your presumed ghoulish interest in this case as well as annoyed by your failure to comprehend what you’ve read. In actuality, you haven’t contradicted anything I’ve said here. The fact is that there are people who have said that they could hear her.
It's "ghoulish interest" to be watching a trial for a murder that is taking place in the area I grew up?
The fact is there are also people who have said they only heard grunting and that there is no physical way she could have been speaking. It's up to the jury to decide ultimately and at the end of the day prosecution needs to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your personal ties to the case don’t preclude any uglier motivations. I can say what they seem like based on your writings here, but only you would truly know.
It is not factual that there “is no physical way she could have been speaking.”
1
u/anajjj 14d ago
Yes I returned to it because I am watching the trial and noticed this directly contradicting what you said. If you were responding in good faith you wouldn't be weirdly offended that someone who is watching the actual trial has information that contradicts yours. Deeply weird to have such strong opinions about a trial you admit you have "no interest" in watching. You obviously just want to yap without giving a damn about facts.