True, I know James got my court analogy .
No matter how the majority felt,
No matter what it obviously appeared to be
No matter how they thought they were right with the circumstantial evidence
No matter how many expert witness were brought to testify
No matter how the majority browbeat the minority jurors
No matter how loud and boisterous and intimdating the majority jurors were
No matter how much the mob ganged up on the one remaining juror
She held firm
And when the FACTS finally came out 8 months later it was only her who saved the innocent man from being convicted.
There is only a very small number facts
so far because they have not been independently verified and challenged.
The Bounty left the dock with the Cpatain in charge- the only thing to date I have
commented on so far concerning the Captain but that may even be premature
The ship sank
We really dont even know if the Captain was coerced or threatened or was even in
charge the whole trip
We really dont know the condition of the ship just unchallenged statements
We really dont know what happened the whole time and chain of events on the ship
just unchallenged statements
None of the gcaptain statements count
None of the Sailnet statements count
All statements, all circumstantial evidents are not considered undiputed facts until challenged in a court or even the inquirey
What Rick (takefve) and I have said all along to many who keep bandying this word fact around like Paulo is that they are not facts in the legal sense. I still do not understand why he cannot get this basic concept. Like my jury analogy: relying and mixing conjecture, hypothesis, unchallenged evidence, and unchallenged statements and coming to conclusions and not awaiting the true facts is a rush to judgement. This rush to judgement has the affect of ruining Robin Walbridges reputation. This IMHO is not
I learned my lesson from that jury trial years ago how dangerous rushing to judgement is. Right now we have Paulo as the leader and a various others who are leading the charge to convict. They have mountains of circumstantial evidence, They have tremendous thories based on it. They have all sorts of internet statements and TV statements unchallenged to support their stance. They have the emotional high ground because of the incredulity of sailin off into an impending storm. None of this means ANYTHING until it is challanged and the FACTS ( which have been vetted) emerge. That wont happen until the inquirey or a court case. So yes while all are entitiled to opinions here they are not facts and the people who dont share the opinions of the majority should not be ridiculed or shouted down or have their credentials challanged any more than the majority should.