Okay, so I clearly was not at the trial. But just based upon reading the Court of Appeal's opinion, are you really sure the defendant's in fact guilty? I mean, like, positive of it, as opposed to just willing to believe it? Positive enough to sentence him to 66 years in prison without any apparent criminal history whatsoever?
The following is admittedly irrational and wrong of me. But I'll share it anyway: I'm somewhat internally more reluctant to believe guilt in closely-disputed cases when the sentence is (essentially) life in prison as opposed to, say, a decade. When it's 10 years, I tend to say: "Well, I'm not positive from what I read that you're guilty, but you could easily be, so I guess I'm on board." Whereas when it's, say, death or life in prison, I'm inclined to really want to be totally sure the guy's guilty.
Which I'm not here. (But, again, I wasn't at the trial.)
Does anyone else share my irrationality? Is there any part of this guy's sentence, given the facts, that disturbs anyone?
