I dunno. I thought he was a scumbag at the time, and certainly you wouldn't want him dating your sister, but I do wonder how much of what he did was because his ego grew (as weird as it sounds)? At the time this was all happening, I was thinking to myself that there's no way all these women could be making this up and he's guilty as charged. During the trial I felt the same way daily. Then the holes were poked in a few arguments and you seen that some women were out to get him for a variety of reasons, but he was still to me a villain because of how he treated them in private. The roughness of it all really bothered me to no end. Then you read about how he had all this power in the office because he was the moneymaker, and it gets you even more angry. But then you read this piece, and undoubtedly it was written to partially be a bit of a sob story, but in our justice system if a person is not guilty, should they lose the ability to make a living? Even if he was found guilty and did time, should he not have the ability to reintegrate into society and make an honest living? I did read some humility in that piece, and just because he didn't go down the complete road of asking for forgiveness, he was humble about what he learned, and it's almost guaranteed he'd never do the same thing again. There really isn't the perfect thing he could say to make it all better, but no matter what he said some groups out there would certainly say that's not enough. There was one publication that said something like, "he hasn't reached out to the people he hurt to make it better". How the heck is he supposed to do that, and would you as a victim want some guy who was found not guilty to reach out to you? I thought it was a well enough written piece in fairness to him.
|