> I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. That was the initial motivation for this particular comment thread: the article excludes ess

> I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. That was the initial motivation for this particular comment thread: the article excludes essentially all of the evidence the state presented in court against Bouldin. Readers have to look at other sources, like court summaries, to find that evidence. The state did present evidence, if weak, with text messages, equipment, and prior convictions, while Bouldin didn't present anything meaningful, and in a civil case, he needed to. That's how the civil court system works, as problematic as it is. The article both presents a legitimate grievance, and presents it misleadingly, which is what makes it frustrating to me.