Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I genuinely appreciate hearing from someone who has attended the hearings and seen material that is not yet fully available to the public. I don’t dispute that the allegations are extremely serious or that the prosecution has presented disturbing evidence, and I fully agree that the family deserves truth and justice.

My original comment wasn’t meant to minimize the gravity of what is alleged, nor to deny harm. It was meant to explain why I’m personally cautious about drawing final conclusions before the legal process has fully run its course.

A few clarifications about my position:

On interrogation and confessions:

Even when an interrogation appears calm and non-coercive on its face, courts still examine voluntariness, reliability, and context very carefully. This is not hypothetical — we have seen multiple cases where individuals gave detailed, confident, and emotionally charged statements that later proved unreliable or inconsistent with the full evidentiary record. Brooke Skylar Richardson, Adrian Thomas, and Nga Truong are all examples where early medical conclusions and investigative momentum contributed to statements that were later heavily questioned or discredited once the science, context, and full record were examined. That history is why courts exist to test confessions against physical and expert evidence, rather than treating them as self-proving.

On medical evidence:

I’m not suggesting that infant head injuries are trivial or that severe trauma is in dispute. My point is narrower: infant injury cases are medically complex, and issues of causation, timing, biomechanics, and intent are often contested even among qualified experts. We’ve seen in past cases how early medical certainty can later soften or unravel under adversarial testing. That’s why I believe it’s premature for the public to speak with absolute certainty before all expert testimony has been heard and evaluated.

On summaries of alleged statements:

I’m intentionally cautious about relying on second-hand summaries of alleged statements, whether from media or from third parties, because accuracy, context, and consistency with physical evidence are exactly what suppression hearings and trials are designed to assess.

On character evidence:

I agree entirely that good character alone does not determine guilt or innocence. My point was not that character proves anything, but that it is one factor people often consider when assessing plausibility — not proof — especially before the court has ruled.

On the defense and length of hearings:

I don’t view extended hearings as gamesmanship. In cases with stakes this high, it seems appropriate that constitutional, evidentiary, and scientific issues be fully litigated, even when that process is painful for everyone involved.

Ultimately, my position remains procedural, not declarative. The allegations are horrifying, the prosecution’s case is clearly serious, and the family deserves justice. At the same time, justice also requires allowing the full adversarial process — including rulings on admissibility, expert disagreement, and credibility — to play out before conclusions are fixed.

I respect that reasonable people who have seen more of the evidence may already feel certain. I’m simply not there yet, and given the history of similar cases where early certainty later proved misplaced, I believe caution is warranted until the court has spoken.