It doesn't trigger people, but it is irksome, because people that are questioning WA's complicity are either trolling or simply have not dissected all the available evidence that incriminates her. Carl Steinbeck produced a list of all the evidence that implicates WA and it was well over 100. Admittedly some pieces were flimsy, but a lot of it is strong circumstantial evidence. It has never been about whether she is innocent or not, it has been about whether the State has enough evidence to indict her.Well stated! Your first paragraph can be easily summarized by two words I have used often when expressing my personal views on how the ‘case’ against Wendi is argued in social media - ‘confirmation bias’. Simply stating that does not mean I believe she is innocent, but it’s often interpreted that way. Expressing any opinion on her case as a whole or any singular detail where you aren’t nailing Wendi to a cross has a tendency to trigger some people.
You just can't have that amount of incriminating, circumstantial evidence and be innocent. Even if you want to pick apart every piece of evidence, you are still left with the fact she lied, multiple times and big lies. She's educated, she's a lawyer, she understands how the law works, she out of anyone would know you do not lie to the police in a murder investigation unless you have something to hide. That's a surefire way to get a target on your back. Why lie about her trip down Trescott?
And I disagree re confirmation bias re WA's guilt. A lot of us have looked at the evidence with a high degree of objectivity. That's why I have said that although I think she was involved, she may not be indicted. If anyone is showing confirmation bias its you. The facts all point to WA's complicity. It's what an ordinary, reasonable person would conclude. This isn't people making assumptions, jumping to conclusions and allowing their emotions to dictate their opinions. It's facts. The default prime suspect in a murder is the ex wife/ex-husband. Add the strong motive, add the fact they turned up at the crime scene and then add all the lies they told. The reasonable conclusion is she was complicit. Can that be proven in a court of law? Dunno.
Last edited: