Wow, what a post.
So basically you and I have a method of determining right and wrong* called Law. Judges and Courts decide what is right and wrong based on the Law you and I request through a system called "Democracy".
Thusly the Judge doesn't read the Faily Mail or Twatter and says the guy is innocent.
I believe the Judge.
I don't believe Twatter.
*What is socially right or wrong, not morally.
Not sure if you've seen the smiley/winky/thumbs up emoticons, what they infer is a light hearted reply to you post.
TBF, IMO, the judge listens to the 'evidence' and makes a judgement, legal, moral, social, whatever...but makes that judgement based on the evidence, or lack of it...NOT by what he/she actually knows. That's my point. That's how all judgements are made if there are no (believeable) witnesses.
As an extension to that, its exactly why there never should be capital punishment, certainly where there's even a shred of doubt. A judge makes a judgement, doesn't mean he's always right though.
My feelings on Dewani, I have a nagging doubt about him, no more. I agree the evidence is suspect, he's been found not guilty, and probably rightly so, despite my (ultimately meaningless) reservations about him.
Its generally a meaningless conversation (the Dewani affair). None of us know, we never will. Whatever our bias, yours, mine, anyone elses, doesn't mean diddly squat in the end. But its human nature to discuss....
