redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
Of course there isn't a document saying that but I believe he understands the SCC rulings better than us. He clearly says even considering RGs definitive rulings they could've concluded the 2 weren't there but they didn't consider that the truth. What he makes clear is a logical reasoning would be needed to back up an acquittal, which is something Hellman couldn't do.
if this is true, why would the opinion/directive of the SCC posted earlier seem to say otherwise?
was something "lost in translation"?