Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
I assumed he meant "saying" still applies if someone else reads it. And frankly I can't imagine why the judge would require the victim to read it unless he's sadistic and wants to see that poor girl have to relive that event.
|
Yeah it's really strange. The judge said he didn't want it as part of the record of the trial because of the publication ban on the victim's name. Yet he would have allowed the victim to read it. And it is introduced into the physical evidence pile anyway. Sounds like he just wanted off work ten minutes early.
They are talking about six years with 2 and a half already served. How these two could ever be released is beyond me.