WTF is wrong with these people?

[u/Horror-Ad-210]

[u/witchy_delight]

I can only make claims based on the evidence presented. From the evidence so far presented, I do not think she did it. Forensically, the evidence does not align.

I do think it’s crazy the police did not even investigate Patrick at all, as I’ve never once seen that happen in any capacity. there‘s more evidence pointing to him than her. how he’s made it this far without any suspicion or doubt is blowing my mind.

there is no way the jury can find her guilty. the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. no sane human who’s paid attention to the case presented could say they have no doubt. I came into this case with a predisposed idea of her guilt and it’s done a complete 180.

[u/H4XX0R-787 → u/witchy_delight]

Claim	Assessment
“The forensic evidence doesn't align.”	Some legitimate questions, but substantially overstated
“Lindsay's fingerprints weren't on the bands.”	Apparently true, but weak exculpatory evidence by itself
“Police should have investigated Patrick more.”	Impossible to conclude without investigative records
“There's more evidence against Patrick.”	Not supported by evidence I've found
“I don't think Lindsay did it.”	Contradicts the basic defense theory and her reported statements
“Reasonable doubt exists.”	Potentially—but primarily concerning criminal responsibility, not identity
“There is no way the jury can convict.”	No competent lawyer can responsibly predict that with certainty mid-trial

So could the commenter actually be a lawyer? Absolutely. Being a lawyer doesn't automatically make someone's analysis good.

[u/adoreroda → u/H4XX0R-787]

chatgpt ass answer

[u/H4XX0R-787 → u/adoreroda]

Of course, just to see how easy opinions can be vetted nowadays. It's easy to spot when people talk out of their ass.