I don't know if you'd say that when they inevitably manage to collapse a case. Clearly, it is a good thing that Anonymous is drawing attention to this case: go

I don't know if you'd say that when they inevitably manage to collapse a case. Clearly, it is a good thing that Anonymous is drawing attention to this case: going by the Atlantic's and the NYTime's reporting, there's a lot of suspect stuff going on and it should absolutely be investigated by people without any skin in the game. However, Anonymous are not lawyers. Releasing potential evidence into the public eye is hugely problematic, because it may in the end not be admissible. Suppose there exists a piece of evidence that appears to absolutely and totally prove the guilt of the accused. However, this evidence is inadmissible in court (this happens more than you might think). The jury wouldn't get to see or hear about this evidence. Now, imagine this key piece of evidence is leaked before the trial by somebody like Anonymous. Suddenly, it's everywhere, all over the news. The defence team are going to have a field day: it's mistrial time. Their client can't possibly receive a fair trial. So I am in two minds about this: on the one hand, it's undoubtedly a good thing that attention is being drawn to this case. This would have been unlikely to happen on such a large scale if Anonymous hadn't gotten involved. On the other, if Anonymous keep going down this road they will cause a mistrial. And that's going to result in the complete opposite of what they're trying to achieve.