Yes, we do need to vent. And commiserate with Warriena's family.
If these so-called legal buffs cannot explain to us, with any specific accuracy, the answers to this previous post of mine, I am just not interested.
So far, no attempt has been made to answer my questions. And I do not want an attempt if it is not specific.
"I think we are all still struggling to understand why ALL of the evidence was not allowed. How many times we have heard the judge instruct the jury to consider all of the evidence.
It is very difficult to understand why that was not the case in this trial.
We have heard that it is because of 'legal arguments'. But what legal arguments? What precedences (or whatever) can dictate such a thing? And why has this not happened before?"