The only recent comments I take real issue with are two of oenophile's statements in post 544, the first which says Brad was "wrongfully prosecuted" and the second which says, "The crowd carrying the pitchforks against Brad really need to consider the children."
Thanks, Calgary123, for your insightful post. I will agree that my two statements, that brad was wrongfully prosecuted and that the crowd carrying the pitchforks against Brad really need to consider the children, are based on my opinion that he is innocent. Particularly the first one. And that this is a reasoned position based on the evidence presented. They are a bit hyperbolic in nature mostly to counter the hyperbolic statements of his guilt. The fact is that no one here knows whether he is innocent or guilty. We can only evaluate the evidence presented. I cannot, in good consciousness, come to the conclusion that his is guilty based on the totality of evidence, and I cannot fathom how anyone else can.
That being said, I agree that some people have stated valid reasoning as to their conclusions. But that isn't necessarily true of many people here. There are several active people in this forum that a) concluded that he was guilty long before the trial, as evidenced in the pre-trial threads; and b) have repeated falsities that have been refuted on a factual basis at trial as reasoning for their conclusions. On the latter point, I am not talking of the Google Map search, but rather the other false claims that were made in support of a guilty verdict. When I speak of a witchhunt, I speak of those that are quick to be judge, jury and executioner while ignoring the facts brought out at trial. To give a rather public example of what I'm talking about, check out the exchange between Nancy Grace and Dan Abrams on the success of the appeal.
In this video, Nancy flat out lied, repeatedly, about the facts of the trial in support of her conclusion that Brad Did It. People here are replicating exactly what Nancy Grace did. Again, I do think there is a case that can be made as to his guilt, however it mostly centers around the Google search. Without that, there really is no case.
On the issue of the children, taking a position with regard to their welfare on the basis of his assumed guilt is not only unfair to him, it is extremely hurtful to the children. Like it or not, he is now innocent again until proven guilty. And there is a clear, rational foundation for believing he is absolutely innocent of this crime. IF he is innocent, then the callous attitude toward the relationship between the father and his daughters is not only harmful to all of them, but also has some pretty significant public policy implications with regard to family law.
Agreed also that there will be some jurisdictional issues regarding Canada vs. NC. I am not sure how the Canadian courts will look at this. But, until the second trial (assuming there is one), I think it is reasonable to maintain the custody situation as it was before the trial. That is, permanent custody to the Lister's, with regular contact via phone to Brad. This seems like what is in the best interest of the children for now. If he is found guilty with a fair trial, then I think he will lose them forever. If he is found not guilty, then he should regain full custodial rights over the children if it is his desire to do so.
In conclusion, what I take most offense to is the idea that children can be taken away from their father permanently on the basis of accusations alone. There is no evidence that he is a bad father. At this point, he is innocent until proven guilty of the crime he is accused of perpetrating, and there is solid foundation for the conclusion that he is innocent. If he is indeed innocent, then how is justice served and the children's welfare sustained by permanently taking them away from their father?
