I am unable to form an informed opinion of that, not enough relevant data.
Interesting you didn't feel this way about the pages of work her lawyer did that you've never seen. You formed an opinion on that one.
She's not on trial, I have no idea what this phrase means in context
Yes you do, because I explained to you how she is on trial in the court of public opinion that you seem to have a problem with.
I'm going to go on a tangent here because this irritates the hell out of me. You were challenged on a point and you shut down and started quoting what you think you believe in.
It is a cornerstone of liberal democracy that the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This is something you said because apparently it's something you believe in, I bet you've even said you would die for it, but only in the context that they told you to care about it.
You don't have to presume innocence or care about any of that stuff unless somebody is literally on trial by the government, right ? I mean that's basically what I'm challenging you on. You say she's not on trial so you can belittle the prosecutions paperwork all you want while disregarding the whole thing as a witch hunt and I say she is on trial in another way. This concept was a thing before it became easily quotable though for reasons. Do you see any other reason to presume somebodies innocence ? Take the government out of the equation. Why should you presume innocence in a one on one situation ? A group ? Family ? Community ? Does it matter at all to you in those situations ? Because the only thing you can seem to say here is that she isn't on trial which suggest to me that you haven't considered presumption of innocence as a concept outside of government.
I have, and I don't have any interest in carrying on a discussion with people who can't leave their safe harbors of easily quotable concepts the government told them to care about.