BBM- Detective Stoddard had a goal. That goal was to paint RH in the worse possible light. He had to show probable cause in order for the judge to uphold the charges.
However,this was not the typical probable cause hearing where the public was behind the arresting PD department. The public was in an outrage because RH was arrested and charged. Cobb county was taking a lot of heat. Stoddard was also under a lot of pressure to turn public opinion and get the public off his back. All that said, in this particular case, the detective had more than one motive for possibly enhancing his testimony a bit. I thought he was quite selective in his testimony, making sure, he did not state anything, that might be taken as favorable to the defendant. Yes, this is typical for state testimony at a PCH. However, for the reasons stated above, the burden on the detective was a little heavier. More reason to possibly enhance.
The examination of the survellience video and PCH transcript was conducted by more than one person from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. So, this is not about believing the one reporter. I respectfully don't agree with your "main arguing points" comment. This was a report based on an examination of the evidence. It was not entirely subjective. If the main arguing points had not and were not being dissected on social media and MSM, I might agree with you. Why should the AJC refrain? I can't imagine the AJC accepting responsibility for this report without valid proof of what they stated as fact.
Had the AJC indulged in idle gossip about the couple, the report would have been more attractive to the public, I'm sure.
IMO
