Comments by "GH1618" (@GH-oi2jf) on "" video.

  1. The defense attorney wants you to think that circumstantial evidence isn’t good evidence. Legally, either kind can be just as good; it is up to the jurors to decide the worth of any particular piece of evidence. Circumstantial evidence is often objective, whereas eyewitness (direct) evidence is often not, so it can be better. If there is enough circumstantial evidence which is consistent and which, taken together, builds a coherent picture of the crime, it can be sufficient to convict. The Nancy Brophy case is an example.
    9
  2. I have been puzzled by all the hate directed at Strickland, who is not culpable, but I think I have figured it out. Most of it probably comes from women who would like to kill the other woman, maybe even their boyfriend, but, not being crazy, they won’t do that. Instead, they get vicarious satisfaction from someone else having done it. I think that’s sick. Not as sick as actually committing the crime, but sick nevertheless.
    6
  3.  @Njvghvvnn — No, I love women. Nice ones, anyway. Armstrong is one to stay away from.
    1