TTF14
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 15,680
- Reaction score
- 72,741
She hadn't seen the offical evidence yet before making her conclusions. That matters, IMO.
But she was commenting as a "pundit." She was not even on the case yet. And THEN, when she was "on the case" and saw the actual photos, she doubled down on her initial conclusion. I am really failing to see how this matters.
Should she just not have been hired as an expert because she once commented on the case? Does that completely invalidate her?
I think not, but it's just my opinion.
JMO IMO