You have declined to give a proper criticism of the law, your most recent addition has been called thoroughly into doubt by HR's trio of posts, and I am tired of having a conversation about what the law should be with someone who transparently wants to talk about one and only one case I've made it very clear I refuse to discuss. You've made it obvious that you are looking for evidence to support your conclusions, not looking for evidence from which to draw conclusions, thus you are not suited to offer neutral thought on the matter.

This merely returns to my original point, way back, that those most interested in these cases are those least suited to render a neutral judgment on them, and the very reason why the media giving 24/7 coverage of these things imperils justice by tainting potential jurors with prejudice. The jurors disagreed with you, they may be wrong, but if anything discussing this with you has only added to my belief that we should place more faith in jurors then trial-obsessed members of the media or public. I hope that when some time has passed you'll come to see that, and I'm not trying to insult you, ones of the reasons why I stay away from keeping track of cases is that I've done the same sorts of things myself in the past and I know if I did follow them I'd be tainted on them too.