-
Gary 06/30/2011 8:00:00 PM
Bringing religion into your comments only diminishes the rest of your comments. Yeah, right--religion is to blame here. What stupidity. I'm glad you're not my attorney and feel sad for anyone who may seek your "services". Frankly, I think there are a lot more quotes that could be used against your legal profession than that of religion. Thus, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
The only person(s) here to blame here are Doug Grant, Faylene and any other individuals that may be involved in her death--period.
-
Bittohunee 02/13/2011 6:11:00 PM
It's not conviction beyond a shadow of a doubt, the standard is "reasonable doubt." Big difference. Beyond that, I agree totally with your point.
-
02/13/2011 5:59:00 PM
Agree with most of your comment. I think Mr. Grant said he saw his wife's HAIR floating. That would make sense.
The bath tub was too small for her to remain submerged to any great extent.
-
02/13/2011 5:54:00 PM
I just saw the re-airing of the Dateline ID show. I am a lawyer; so I want to put that bias out right off the bat. I thought the prosecution of this case was shameful. Not only the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever, but also the fact that the prosecutor repeatedly interrupted the defense attorney with one objection after another. It is common courtesy in trials to hold objections during closings unless something clearly egregious is said. Were I the trial judge I would have laid some ground rules with the prosecutor. He seemed to be an arrogant guy with a big dose of small man complex.
Thankfully Mr. Grant only got 5 years, but he should never have been indicted to begin with. This is, sadly, very clearly a case that never should have been prosecuted.
As for Faylene, I was taken aback by her so-called "faith". She divorced her first husband because of a feeling she got sitting in the Mormon Temple? (WTF?) For a "romantic" second honeymoon she chose a Mormon tourist trap:. (What about Disney World?) Why wasn't the jury troubled by her journal entries about the impending nature of her death?
I can't imagine being in the shoes of the medical examiner. The two likely scenarios were accident or suicide, and I was leaning toward suicide. What would Dr. G. have done?
Faylene's "fall" was more likely a jump. Someone should have pressed for a psych eval in the ER. The problem was that suicide is such a no-no in the Mormon religion that it would have created too much of a scandal.
The bath tub incident sounds like she took too much ambien. What pain killer was precribed for her? If it were something strong that could have been synergistic with the ambien. Doug claimed the whole thing started when she wet the bed. (Um, what was that about? It is not normal for an adult woman to wet the bed like that. I's sad that was a red flag). He said he got up and helped her to the toilet. At that point she decided to take a bath.
I have to agree with others about the role of religion in all of this. I kept wondering if Faylene had the capacity to think for herself. She sounded mentally ill. Whenever she needed to make a decision in her life she would drive to a temple and wait for "Heavenly Father" to tell her what to do? (Even if the nearest temple was miles away????)
I'd say Faylene needed something a lot more powerful than ambien. Too bad her family members did not recognize her behavior and religious obsessions were anything but normal. When she was letting everyone in her circle know that she was going to die soon, didn't anyone think to suggest a coulselor or a psychiatrist? If Doug Grant is to blame for anything, it is that he failed to get her into therapy. You know, it just is creepy that she wrote a letter requesting that Doug come to her funeral married to his mistress. Didn't that hit her family as wacked?
I felt sad when her dad said that she had a little touch of angel... I think what he meant to say was that his angel was a little touched... in the head.
'When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When a whole group of people suffers from a delusion, it's called religion."
-Richard Dawkins
-
ecstatist 02/13/2011 4:14:00 AM
in the previous comment "esophageal constriction" should "broncho-spasm"
-
ecstatist 02/12/2011 5:20:00 PM
I watched the last hour of the show late, late last night, and one thing struck me and I am not sure I heard it exactly right.
The accused (while waiting for the jury's decision) stated that he came into the bathroom and saw his wife "floating" (or words to that effect) in the bath. I know that 99.9% of people (unless they are exceptionally fat or grossly (sic) flatulent) do not "float" in (especially fresh) water if their lungs are not full of air. (And to hold one's lungs that full requires "conscious over-
inspiration and conscious breath-holding") Dead or unconscious people do not float (except in very very rare cases of esophageal constriction.)
I know that this is contrary to what almost all people think (thanks to Hollywood et al) but you can do the experiment yourself in a pool or bath. As a much experienced "life guard" and "rescue diver" I know the above to be true. (My personal attitude is that considering, with certainty, age and water temperature and air availability I will not bother searching for a corpse or heavily brain damaged person after a surprisingly short time - all efforts after say 6 minutes for an average adult in warm water is for the sake of the relatives or public and not the victim. I refuse to be a victim of fallacious public misconceptions - it is much simpler to wait for methane to build up in the gut of the victim and thence float - this also dependent on body size and water temperature and anti-biotic ingestion.
Anyway back to the case - I also considered that perhaps the upper torso would "float" (due to residual lung air capacity) but then the program "indicated" the amount of fluids that were expelled from the victim's lungs (by ambulance guys and at the hospitals)
I am the first person to admit that I might be wrong and also that I may have misheard or misinterpreted the information on the program. Also, for even a guilty accused, I would be a "good juror" for I am highly skeptical of nearly everything and even skeptical of a single "double blind study."
I would be interesting (at least for me) if any "devout" follower of this case or persons who have access to records of the amounts (measured or estimated) of expelled lung fluids and exactly what was said by the accused on TV and on other occasions concerning the position of the victim in the bath and levels of confidence one could have concerning the accused understanding of his descriptions.
Another big flag for me was the "surface" that CPR was administered on.
I have entirely theoretically considered how I would successfully "murder" someone (yes I am a "nutty person" who makes up "games/pictures" in his head - so beware! lol) and the cliff scenario has always looked promising.
RELIGION, THE FIRST AND LAST REFUGE OF THE INSANE.
-
DAVIDDEVILLE1 02/12/2011 11:31:00 AM
Just watched this story on dateline id. Wow, I fell this is a injustice, and makes me lose faith in police and jurys, no wonder, people take b.s plea deals. It seem like the jury will always do what the procecuter wants or pretty darn close. On dateline the jury said if there would of been a 911 call he wouldent been on trail, so you telling me this guy was socalled so brazin bout ploting to kill his wife but left out calling 911 , how many people kill people foreal and then call 911, thats a lame excuse to convict someone. espeaceally when the guy called somone for help a doctor and possably called 911. He got marryed right after but its not like the chick came out the shadow there was no motive here and
THE POLICE AND JURY SHOULD BE ASHAMED !!!!
-
Donte 10/13/2009 1:52:00 AM
Be careful with the police read some news stories and other info here also.
http://www.dirtbadge.com/
-
Mike 06/03/2009 9:25:00 PM
Are you kidding me? There is absolutely no way that he killed his wife. She was clearly insane and there is literally not one piece of evidence that she was murdered, but thousands of pieces of evidence that she committed suicide.
Doug needs to be out of Jail immediately.
If you need some help on deciding a side on this case. Here's a little info....-If you think he is guilty than you have a severe mental problem.
Wow that would be terrible to live in fear. Lucky to be in New England!!!and not that crap with corrupt piece of shit cops like this prick Ray.
Religion =Fear=Death.
-
julie 05/18/2009 8:31:00 PM
I don't even believe they got a guilty verdict on manslaughter. His sentence is too much. This is hogwash.
Doug is a good man. He made many mistakes. None murder.
He needs to be home with his family.
-
Brighter 04/30/2009 3:49:00 PM
What evidance? You had nothing in way of evidance to find Doug Grant guilty of anything. Even if he did not call 911, that isn't a punishable crime. Do you have any clue how many people would be in prison right now because they didn't call 911. Some teens were out in the hills drinking and having a good time. One of them were acting weird and passed out. They thought he needed to sleep it off. NO ONE CALLED 911. That boy died, and not a single person is facing any charges for NOT calling 911. It didn't matter that these kids were bad, did drugs, drank and were a menace to society. They were not charged with anything. I feel this case is like that. Just because Doug Grant cheated on his wife and maybe wasn't the best husband, doesn't mean he killed her. He may have been afraid to call 911. After all, he is the one who filled the script. He may have felt guilty. But for crying out loud people! I would have been skeptical about the whole case because it took them 4 1/2 years to arrest him. They needed all that time to come up with bull **it! This is a sad day in the Great United States Of America, when a man will face years in prison because a jury just couldn't understand why he didn't call 911!
In the autopsy, there wasn't any tearing in her throat (if she struggled, there would have been) there wasn't any sign of foul play. Get real. You jurors made a bad decision and I hope you can all look at yourselves in the mirror.
-
Another Juror 04/23/2009 5:14:00 PM
To IPOD
Maybe some of the jurors were emotional during the deliberation because a mans future was at stake, and many family members on both sides would be affected by the outcome of this trial. You should have taken your ear buds out and maybe you would have understood the emotion. Never, did we talk about, insinuate, or lead you or anyone else to believe that we were basing our decision on our feelings towards the character of Doug Grant. We didn't, we based it on the evidence presented.
-
Daisy Duke 04/16/2009 9:12:00 PM
Weigh in on whether you think Doug Grant was screwed by the Town of Gilbert and Maricopa County:
http://www.topix.com/forum/county/pima-az/T5D61PTPGSB9KRBR4
-
Dorothy Gale 04/15/2009 9:21:00 PM
It�s really a simple equation. Journalism + Quid Pro Quo = Sophistry. The article reads like the defense�s manifesto of innocence. All those that have followed this trial and have read this article, know it�s not worth the paper it is written on.
The headlines should read:
�Is alias blogging on your own article akin to a doctor making you sick just so he can heal you?�
�Grant finding unconscious wife, had time to have breakfast, before having a friend call for help�
�Would you hire Mel McDonald, even for a traffic violation?�
-
ryan 04/15/2009 5:25:00 AM
It is better for 100 guily men to go free than for 1 innocent man to go to prison. Prosecuters just want to win. What a shame.
-
Coz 04/13/2009 1:55:00 AM
Craig,
Let's hope if one day you are on trial for something, you don't get convicted by the statement below.
When people get convicted by a gut feeling and not beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the entire justice system is nothing more than a total farce.
That's what I have a problem with.
>>"I think he contributed to it," says Percifield, a Chandler resident who is chief of security at a DUI facility. "Just a gut feeling. Nothing was proven."
-
craig 04/12/2009 10:10:00 PM
Coz, you really need to meet more defense attorneys. I know dozens and Mel isn't consider top notch by anyone but Mel. His inability to ask nonleading questions is the same as his ability to not exit the freeway illegally from an HOV lane casusing an accident after taking too many prescription drugs. Another thing Coz using a lot of exclamation points doesn't make your argument any stronger
-
Marcy 04/12/2009 9:48:00 PM
Scary stuff when a juror says after the trial:
"I think he contributed to it," says Percifield, a Chandler resident who is chief of security at a DUI facility. "Just a gut feeling. Nothing was proven."
But at the trial he convicted the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't convict people on a gut feeling or because you think they are a scuzzbag.
-
jim 04/12/2009 8:40:00 PM
Kaz I assume you mean you went to one day of trial since there has only been one trial. The jury who listened to the whole trial came to their conclusion and a class based attack is sad and not persuavive. Your conclusion that Mr. Grant is sincere is interesting because it was clearly not based on his testimony. Mel Mcdonald is a blowhard who apparently is incapable of following simple rules like leading questions. People who are impressed with blustering by defense counsel need to understand that in a case in which your client's intention in on trial that it important that the attorney not be an issue but Mel can not help himself. He convinces deluded souls that only he can save them but among the defense bar he would not be on anybody's list of good attorneys.
-
Kaz 04/12/2009 5:33:00 PM
I went to one of the trials, and all I can say is that from what I heard and saw, Mr. Grant is innocent. He's a very sincere man. And Mr. McDonald was one of the BEST defense lawyers that I have met. Mr. Grant was definitely smart for hiring Mel McDonald.
Most of the jury members were sleeping at the trial. Sucks to have people like that determine ur fate. Plus, a few of them looked like they had been taken out of trailers parks.
This case was definitely unfair. You should'nt be able to convict someone guilty because you don't like them. If that was the case then many people in jail would be free and many free people would be in jail. Its ridiculous. Just shows how screwed up the Justice system is.
The Gilbert detective IS very "cute" but that doesn't change the fact that he was a complete idiot and a sleazeball! He should be in jail for being a no good, lying dirty cop!
The evidence provided made Doug Grant look like the victim anyway, victim of having to deal with a crazy wife!
Anyway, I wish Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Grant the best!
-
craig 04/12/2009 4:04:00 PM
It amuses me that people like Coz can insult a jury who sat and listened to all the evidence and base his opinion on what a writer tells him happened. A writer that is so tied to the defense that Mel allowed him to listen to privileged attorney client conversations.
-
Coz 04/11/2009 6:34:00 AM
There goes another one, railroaded by the Maricopa County Injustice System and given the stamp of approval by 12 idiots that did the County Attorney's dirty work for him.
God, Arizona sucks.
-
Ava 04/10/2009 7:05:00 PM
It sounds like Doug Grant needed Michelle Carson to defend him.
-
david saint 04/10/2009 6:13:00 PM
to Paul, question:
how do i put this without disrespecting the judge...
ok, has she prior to this allowed a prosecutor to basically run rampant and consistantly side with them, or was this isolated? what i mean is it seems like she allowed the prosection a TON of leeway, while limiting the defense on just about every facet of the case. And that includes allowing a detective to essentially lie on the stand without reprocussion.
-
Watching in Awe 04/10/2009 5:42:00 PM
Doug would have been nailed with murder 1 if he had any other attorney than Mel. I've followed several cases of his and he comes accross as knowledgeable and well spoken. It is clear that he puts his heart and soul into his clients and their cases, just as one juror commented that he seemed a little 'too close' to the defendant. It is difficult to get your side of things out in open court when you have a judge that allows the prosecutor to control which story is told, via objections and rulings, and which evidence can be included.
And speaking of evidence... Mr. McDonald DID focus on the evidence (or blatant lack therof) and the jury agreed that there wasn't any. But they convicted him anyway.
Mahoney allowed Martinez to completely control this entire process. McDonald did an amazing job considering both hands were tied behind his back. Doug would have been looking at 20-30 years without him.
And btw, this is NOT Paul Rubin. He is too busy respecting the Passover to comment
-
Lee B 04/10/2009 5:35:00 PM
Great great story. That was a lot to put together there. I went back and read the early ones that you did and everything you wrote in there seems like what happened at the trial. I wonder why the police officer was not a factor at the trial. The investigation was so bad. It sounds like Grant was reckless, though how much was criminal and how much wasn't I don't know. I do want to know how six people voted for premeditated first degree. Even if he was a creep. There are a lot of them out there. This one should be a book. Again, really enjoyed the story,
-
david saint 04/10/2009 5:39:00 AM
just wanted to add, "ipod" i do respect the service you did regardless of whether or not i agreed with you...cant say id be a fan of a cramped room for 8 hours a day...
-
larryb 04/10/2009 1:23:00 AM
Mel Mcdonald lost his case because his ego is more important than his clients. This is a case that called for a defense counsel who calmly attacks the evidence but Mel always has to attempt to bully. He has been living off his reputation for years and is viewed as a clown by those in the criminal field. Mel if capable of understatement could win. Doug Grant would have been much better off with Jay Adelman as first chair because Jay is a professional who can ask questions instead of a clown who blusters but I was once the U.S. attorney.
-
Journalism 04/10/2009 12:14:00 AM
Ms. Gayle, Please back up your statements with facts or examples. I find the New Times investigative journalism to be very complete. They report the facts, they verify the facts, and they can be challenged at any time. I dare you to show me one error in Mr. Ruben�s article. I dare you to show me where his article is slanted.
This whole situation is a tragedy for both sides. However, truth remains that there is NO evidence Mr. Grant killed his wife. He was convicted for not calling 911 right away (and there are some differences there) and for doing CPR on a bed instead of the floor. Are you kidding me? It appears to me the guy might not be so nice, but that IS NOT the same as being a criminal.
The facts are that you have a dirty cop, and a jury that convicted on perception, not facts. Mr. Grant should have never been convicted in this situation and I hope he chooses to appeal. This case seemed to be more about personalities between the judge, prosecution, and defense. Not about protecting Mr. Grant's rights as a defendant.
I feel bad for Mr. Grant and his family (Including Faylene and her family); however, this was not the right thing to do. The judge, jury and prosecutor should be ashamed with this decision.
-
PR 04/10/2009 12:06:00 AM
Don't usually respond to comments, and always appreciate constructive criticism, which this last comment was anything but. But I am reminded of my "Murder City" series, published in 2006, which was born after the Phoenix Police Department allowed me full access to all the investigations conducted by the C-32 homicide squad for calendar year 2005. One of those murder cases, the senseless and tragic killing of Officer Dave Uribe, is in trial right now. Point is, I remember a bunch of letters from folks after those stories came out with the same conclusion as "Dorothy"--that I was in the back pocket of the cops because I was writing these very inside stories from a pro-law enforcement point of view. Whatever. Been writing stories a long, long time, and as I told a group of folks at a meeting for the Parents of Murdered Children, "When you write about sensitive subjects, you're going to make some people unhappy." But do me a favor, okay? If you're gonna have at me, go for it. But can you please get a little deeper?
-
david saint 04/09/2009 11:48:00 PM
gee dorothy, guess you are still in kansas...lol..seriously though, what is your malfucntion? you simply state that Rubin is a fake, and im full of shit..care to elaborate further and present any facts, or just talk shit?
-
Dorothy Gale 04/09/2009 11:18:00 PM
Paul Rubin�s article is beyond �yellow journalism� they are in fact �chromatically canary journalism�. Rubin has been in the Grant camp since day one; when has a reporter been allowed access to a private meeting between an accused and a defense attorney regarding the defendant taking the stand.
�McDonald allowed New Times to listen in on the discussion via speakerphone.�
In addition, look for the name �David Saint� in the New Times blogs. Use their search engine and type his name. Is this how the �truth� gets shaped? Incredible journalism, keep up the deceptive work.
-
david saint 04/09/2009 9:52:00 PM
ipod:
well i have to say in reponse, your jobs were not to decide if he acted as a logical person, but whether or not he broke the law...and not calling 911 for 9 minutes, but performing cpr, is a far cry from criminal or breaking the law. Again, there are numerous stories of people walking over say, someone who just got shot, and they didnt get arrested for not calling 911..i remember this because in a stabbing incident, more than 10 people walked over a lady while she was dying at a gas station, and the outcry was "how can no one be charged for not calling 911"..fact is, its not against the law. Now, that situation is obvlously different than here, but stupity and not using what others may consider logical sense, is not against the law....
The fact still remains, he broke no laws but pissed people off, and thats the only explenation for the verdict you gave. Im also wondering why one juror was so hard up for 1st degree charges, and was even willing to go as far as vote not guilty just so it would hang and they would have another chance. That tells me something, like personal vendetta, which a jury is not supposed to get into. Its not supposed to be personal is what im getting at, otherwise the judicial system would have a huge flaw in it. wouldnt you agree with that?
Further, you had ample time to go over the evidence, but your explenation still makes no sense. When i read that 6 had their minds made up in less than a few days, that tells me that they then NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE. They already had their minds made up, but to get him into prison they were willing to change course and say "ok, he didnt do it with pre-meditation, but hes culpable anyways now.." See where im getting at with this?
i read that one person was not guilty, but seemingly caved because he was outnumbered..i dont know this as fact though, this you certainly would know more than me on. But if im on a jury, and my decision effects someones life that greatly, im making damn sure that i go over everything as many times as needed before i make that decision. Maybe im alone in this thought process, but i also have a big conscience. I just dont see how callous some of the jurors seem towards Grant translates into beyond a reasonable doubt...
im not saying i like the guy by the way, this is about my concern that a prosecutor can make a jury simply not like a guy, without any conclusive evidence, a detective can lie to get an indictment to start with, and hes sent to prison so easily without any reprocussions for the cop. i honestly dont think the jury asked enough questions though, and from your own admission here "we only were able to go over 50 or so pieces of evidence"..would you, if you were on trial for such a serious matter, want the jury to convict soley on personal conflicts such as they thought you were scum, or pour through ALL the evidence maticulously, to make sure 100%, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that you were guilty?
im not trying to say your bad people by the way, not by any means, i just think that you guys/ladies allowed too much personal opinion play into the verdict rather than 100% facts as it is intended. thats all...and i hope one day, some of those particular people (again, not you) come to realize that their personal feelings towards someone they really didnt know at all, allowed them to send that person to prison for that reason alone, not because he is guilty.....
-
IPOD 04/09/2009 7:38:00 PM
*****************************************
David:
Well I must say you have done a little homework regarding the other jurors, yet to discredit the group based off of one juror comments is unfair. As far as a juror contacting Juan Martinez�s assistant (referring to Detective Sye Ray) is a little unbelievable. Having about 1000 pieces of exhibits being presented in trial, the jurors were only able to review about 50 pieces of evidence during deliberation not to mention no transcripts. In your last post their was mention of the �desire to commit suicide,� that is a theory to tag along with the other hundreds of theories of what could of and might had happen, yet in Fayleen�s journals and testimony�s from family and friend it was mentioned that she believe she was going to pass away not commit suicide. At a young age we are taught to call 911 in an event of an emergency, Doug Grant let 9 mins pass by from the time that Doug informed Jenna and boys to leave to the Rodger�s house to the time that Chad White arrived. Any sensible human would have called 911 keeping in mind the many other contributing factors that lead to Fayleen�s death.
*****************************************
-
Mike Wells 04/09/2009 7:11:00 PM
He was "reckless" because of stuff he did AFTER she died? How did that contribute to her death? Because he attempted CPR on a bed? Would you have rather he tried it in a tub full of water? As for the 911 call, he was scared, his waife was dead after a major fall, and he called a medical person he trusted. Obviously, 911 would have been the smart choice, but if she was already dead, this in no way contributed to her death.
Murder trials aren't supposed to be about how much you did or didn't like the guy, they're supposed to be about evidence, and the evidence I see is of a woman who had been hinting about suicide for a long time, and miraculously ended up OD'd in the bathtub.
And how could 6 of you vote for premeditation? What evidence di you have that he planned this in advance that wasn't printed here? They DID at least explain the concepts of 'premeditiation', 'beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent', right? Just because you feel someone had something to do with, let's say a murder, if you don't feel that they planned it out, you don't still decide to find them guilty of 1st degree murder because you think that's your only option.
If the letters were really witheld from the pathologist, I'd be pissed a s juror. This is why I don't want to streamline the death penalty process, not because I'm soft on crime, but because people keep getting their death row cases overturned because some asshat prosecutor lied and/or witheld evidence that proved the innocence of the defendant. Look at the Duke LaCrosse team fiasco, You should be pissed at this cop for using you.
-
david saint 04/09/2009 5:14:00 PM
Juror:
i find that hard to believe. I come to this conclusion because ive read stories of people walking over victims of a crime without so much as stopping. further, its pretty clear she had a desire to commit suicide, and the only thing he could have done was admit her to a hospital. But that responsibility also fell with her family as well, not just Doug by your own conclusion. Not calling 911, but calling for other help, isnt grounds for mansluaghter charges. And lets face it, theres been so many inconsistancies in this case from go, from the med examiner not having a conclusion, to the detective that lied his ass off, and then there is no solid evidence that he in fact had anything to do with it..just mere speculation.
Your fellow juror that told the paper "we just thought the guy was a scuzzbag, nothing proven" seemed to have summed it up honestly, why cant you? It seems to me that you jurors just didnt like the guy, and let your emotions control your decision. I had this thought before i knew the jury was mostly women, now im sure of it. I also found it interesting that a juror called the detective, who again LIED, "cute"....so damn the cheater, but the lying cop is cute??
-
Interested 04/09/2009 3:22:00 AM
I want to know more about this dirty Gilbert cop. Did he lie to the jury about the letters? If so, is he going to be held accountable?
-
david saint 04/09/2009 1:30:00 AM
ive talked to some lawyers about this, and their just as astonished that the judge is allowing a guilty verdict where there is clearly a reasonable doubt to stand. Even the jurors own words, "nothing proven", show that there was still reasonable doubt. Thankfully the Wilkerson trial showed that the justice system here isnt completely flawed, and not all juries swayed by just emotions.
Its scary though, that a jury can convict on just not liking a guy, a detective can lie through his teeth continually (including in a grand jury proceeding..isnt that what Bonds is getting charged with??), and the facts are so distorted theres now more questions than answers. I really hope the judge comes to her senses and realizes this is more Zimbabwe style court justice, rather than American justice at its best, and sets aside the verdict as it should be. Hey, if Martinez's smug ass is so confident, let him prove it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Until that is done, this is a huge stain on the courts credibility.
