If the judge did nothing wrong, as Ant says, why would he go back and delete his reasoning? It certainly appears that something wasn't exactly right.
The fact that he felt the need to comment on it on a public forum on the WORLD WIDE WEB blows me away. As does the fact that these 3 were convicted with no evidence whatsoever.
He was trying to convict them again , in the court of public opinion, after the Supreme Court overruled his decision.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles" - Bauvard
