In the late 1940s the Liberty Theater had a machine in the lobby where various candy bars were offered. One of the choices was called "Take a chance!" which, more often than not, was empty. I liked this one too, because when it wasn't empty, it gave a sweet payout -- chocolate, mystery and suspense.
But if it works for candy bars, using this method to pick a county sheriff just might be taking a bit too much of a chance.
In the matter of John Turner, the U-B's investigation seems to be exhaustive. The evidence and testimony against him also seems to be factual and straightforward, given by people not seeking private gain.
Still, the candidate refutes the charges with his own counter-evidence, although much of what he says was not written down. A number of people support his testimony.
Others who might know something aren't talking. After all, a county sheriff has a lot of power, and reprisals are a possibility.
Often, when we need to make a decision, we don't have all the facts. In this one, we don't have enough to put the choice "beyond reasonable doubt."
If the allegations were not in the areas of ethics, honesty, good judgement and attention to detail, the choice might be easier. But a county sheriff needs all these virtues, and four years in office is a good long time to reflect on a bad decision.