The fact that one fallible (like all of us) human being can decide that the third party evidence is false, based solely on opinion, and not let a jury of his peers consider it and decide it (like our justice system is supposed to be), makes me terrified. This is not only about this case and this is not just my take on it (myriad attorneys out there agree with me). JMO MOO IMO
You are the exclusive judges of the facts proved, of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to their testimony.
There have been many cases during my lifetime in which a judge made decisions that IMO were all wrong.
But what would you have instead? This is the American judicial system as outlined in the Constitution. The judge makes the call.
IMO JG did not, as you state, “decide that the third party evidence is false, based solely on opinion.” It’s that there WAS NO EVIDENCE. There was a narrative provided by the defense, but no hard facts to undergird the theory. The “runes” were not indubitably an F and branches arranged ritualistically could not be proven. The alleged perpetrators had alibis.
When you state the mandate to the jurors, you’re correct that they are to be the “the exclusive judges of the facts proved.”
But NO FACTS WERE PROVIDED.
IMO the judge would not have been upholding the law by including a highly embellished narrative in which not one concrete bit of evidence supported the theory.
I’m no fan of Odinists and their beliefs, but to me the theory sounds like bad fanfic. Yet what I believe is irrelevant. The judge has the knowledge and the training and information unbeknownst to us.
Yes I think judges err at times, but again, this is our Constitution. JG did not flip a coin, but instead thoroughly examined the defense’s theory and found it wanting.
JMO