[Husker] Christensen Reinstated

[Steve Reichenbach]

The evidence was not zero.  The woman testified she was molested.  That
is evidence of a crime.  She turned around and saw Christensen.  That
is evidence that he did it.  His subsequent reaction is more
evidentiary of his intoxicated state, lack of self-control, and pattern
of criminal behavior, which also is evidence --- and is more likely
than outrage at a "false accusation", as you suggest.  This may not be
evidence beyond reasonable doubt --- as you say, it is possible that
someone else did it.  You can believe what you want, but the evidence
was much more than zero, which is why the case was prosecuted.
Methinks, based on the evidence, that Christensen was lucky that no one
was looking at the woman's behind when he allegedly molested her (or no
one is willing to testity to what they saw), allowing him to get away
with reasonable doubt.

> I wasn't at the bar that night, nor was I at the trial, BUT all the
> evidence presented both by the media and via the internet togetherwas
> basically zero.