You may want to retract your statement. I never said you didn't know the basic facts. The basic facts YOU know is he was arrested and there is a trial. What other facts do you know?

Your conclusion is nonsense. The DA might have been slightly incompetent, not "totally incompetent" or the jury may have been gullible or may have felt sympathy of the rock star or who knows what of many other possible forces might have acted in the courtroom to create the verdict.

For your statement to have been right, the DA would have to have been totally incompetent. Remember it was not guilty on all 10 counts. Your comment on the jury shows to me you don't believe in the jury system as you stated you did. As for what forces might have acted in the courtroom, without evidence to the contrary (if you believe in the jury system as you say) is that the jury (who sat through all 14 weeks of trial) came to the conclusion he wasn't guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Now why the outlandish and childish tirade? You were doing so well.

My logic is not circular. Certain lawyers twist the truth, juries are fooled by them and verdicts are created. Nothing circular there. A happens, which causes B, which causes C. A rock falls off a cliff, it hits a car on the road below it, the car has a dent. If you see a circle, I'll get you some glasses.

The scenario you just presented about the rock falling is not circular. However here is what you said:

I think the verdict was created by high priced lawyers' twisting the truth.