Were you in the courtroom for the trials? Did you read all the briefs and transcripts and review all the evidence? They were able to prove 4 counts against he

Were you in the courtroom for the trials? Did you read all the briefs and transcripts and review all the evidence? They were able to prove 4 counts against her and 12 against him. What is provable and which counts relate to what sentences isn't necessarily intuitive. Why jump to the assumption of sexism without all the relevant info? Even if you had the info, do you have the legal qualifications to evaluate it? I for one choose to trust my peers who spent weeks hearing all of this and poring over the details. Could it be biased? Sure, that's possible, juries aren't perfect. I just don't understand the rush to assume a sexist bias based solely on the aggregate sentence lengths.