The crazy thing is, it's really a matter of the finder of fact being an issue, where most appeals rest on interpretation of the law. The judge just basically said, "Because you don't have someone confessing to their obvious malicious intent, it's not proven, so get fucked."
Since most appeals are used to accepting the decision of the finder of fact, it'll be hard to overturn. Maybe there's an appeal point on the judge finding fact rather than ordering a jury?
The lower court judgment is beyond maddening.
I could see this going up to federal court level and being overturned to create precedent (I hope anyway)
The crazy thing is, it's really a matter of the finder of fact being an issue, where most appeals rest on interpretation of the law. The judge just basically said, "Because you don't have someone confessing to their obvious malicious intent, it's not proven, so get fucked."
Since most appeals are used to accepting the decision of the finder of fact, it'll be hard to overturn. Maybe there's an appeal point on the judge finding fact rather than ordering a jury?