McLaren_Field wrote:
Then he, having heard ALL of the evidence must be believed.
That's an odd one. Do judges never make mistakes? I'm not saying that the attack
was racially motivated, and I accept that the judge had access to a lot more information than you or I, but to say the judge
must be believed is just wrong. Perhaps if he had stated explicitly why he thought it wasn't (maybe he did and it wasn't reported), we could be a bit more confident either way.
Oh, and, I was only answering your question as to who said the attack wasn't racially motivated.
