4 ms·
I don’t understand how noting that something is based on conjecture and not on any allegations in the public record (the earlier hearing that first made the men
by filmgirlcw 6y ago
I don’t understand how noting that something is based on conjecture and not on any allegations in the public record (the earlier hearing that first made the mental health claims are under seal) is inappropriate. Of course more information will be made public in the future! You can disagree with my personal conjecture about what a defense will be — and I could absolutely be wrong, I’m not her attorney and I don’t work for the government. And that’s exactly why I’m making it clear that my personal opinion is based on the information we do have. You don’t have to agree with my opinion but it calling it inappropriate to even have one is weird.
- perl4ever 6y agoI didn't see who was making any specific conjecture. When you know there is going to be relevant information coming out, prejudging as if there isn't going to be, is just wrong. Not in the sense of injustice, but in the sense that there's no realistic chance of being correct. I don't think that is a "weird" outlook. I am making no prejudgment on whether her actions were justified, just that context matters, and in this instance, context will be provided later. The compulsive need to judge without information rather than waiting is "weird" to me personally, but I acknowledge and accept it's normal human behavior.