There is a reasonable doubt. That's why he was found not guilty.
Yes. That's why uttering threats, attempted murder and murder are all different charges.
False.
In my opinion did he kill Ron and Nicole? Yes.
Would I go on a public forum and state categorically that I know him to be a murderer? No.
oh - you're trying to score 'points'.
OK - so you never said "murderers". Take a minute and explain to us the ethical line between murder and rape in this context.
Unlike you, I would call OJ Simpson a murderer to his face. I would call Lloyd Irvin a rapist to his face.
if Lloyd Irvin knocked on my door and said "say that to my face" I'd say "Get the fuck off my property, you fucking rapist." or something to that effect.
because in order to believe that Lloyd Irvin is not a rapist, you have believe too much that's unbelievable.
First, you have to believe his version of the story. That he stood there and tried to get an erection and did not touch the girl being raped by his two friends. I find that ridiculous.
Second, you have to believe his version of events makes him 'not a rapist'. In my book, Lloyd Irvin's own version of the story makes him a rapist, because I don't draw a line between people's levels of participation in a rape. People who participate in a rape are rapists.
Third, you have to dismiss literally every other data point regarding his interactions with human beings, and focus on the one story where an arguably racist defense created reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury. You have to completely ignore all of the corroborating evidence over the last 30 years of his life....the stories out of his school, the unprecedented scope and depth of the depravity of his students, the unethical business practices, the first-hand accounts of students and their families...
Lloyd Irvin is not a convicted rapist. But he's an admitted one.