Wowza - you finished with a BANG. Not one stone left unturned in this one. The arguments are exactly what I've heard - even where I live, miles away. People who didn't actually watch the trial but felt it sufficient to get their facts from the internet want to argue "facts" that were never presented and/or were debunked. Unfortunately, I think at the end of the day, just like the jury, they don't care about - or even want - to learn the truth.

I noticed you didn't touch on the jury - probably not a bad thing. But when I learned today that you only had to have a 6th grade education to serve, it explained a lot. I'm not sure the defense's strategy during the trial had much to do with the verdict. I think what they did outside of trial had the verdict determined before it began.

Maybe your next article can be about what changes need to be made in the judicial system now that we've seen what a high-paid PR strategy - one that includes every form of social media as well as crowds on demand - can do to taint a jury. It's actually a bit terrifying seeing not only a verdict compromised, but the harassment and torment innocent witnesses have had to endure. And it hasn't ended.

Thanks again for the time you took to explain and bring sense to what should have been a simple hit-and-run accident.