As you say, I disagree. You and I get to vote for people who will change our gun laws or not, depending on locale we get to vote for judges and prosecutors too, we can also harass our congressmen. We don't get to vote on juries, we don't get to call jurors up and offer our opinions. To me discussing a criminal legal case on a private citizen is like people trying to tell a private research labs how and what they should study, its not part of the zone of democracy nor are they scientists.

Well, I've explained my reasoning, it didn't convince you. I'm not saying you don't have a right to speak about it, nor am I saying its sick or depraved to do so, I just think its unwise and in a gray area ethically without having any benefits to justify entering that. Have at it, I won't stop you, I already have way more posts in this thread then I want to and they're all wasted. Well, not wasted, messages here are never dialogues with an audience of one after all, but of the people arguing, I've changed no minds, and I knew I wouldn't. Ultimately though, do you think this trial would have been better or worse for less of this sordid public coverage?