Posted on 08/19/2013 11:56:09 AM PDT by KeyLargo
If it turns out she was involved, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
but how do you explain this guy’s cohort saying he did it?
This guy is getting splinters scraping the bottom of the barrel for a smidgin of reasonable doubt.
Their job isn't to prove their client innocent (that is supposed to be presumed), but to give the jury a reason to find their client may not have committed the crime, despite the evidence presented against them.
If that scenario is not credible, the jury will dismiss it as not being a good and reasonable defense and find the accused guilty if the evidence so indicates.
At least, that's how it is supposed to work.
He is doing the mother an incredible disservice, but he is doing his job. Unfortunately, he should be doing it in the courtroom, not the media.
But even if a teen was hired as a killer, he would be probably smart enough to shoot from a hidden place, secure the retreat, to have an alibi, and to remain quiet. Since this crime was solved within a day, the shooter was not prepared, and the crime occurred randomly.
A few on business ethics. But, a decent moral center makes them all easy. And if my company makes them hard, I go find somewhere else to work :-)
Nope, I'm more concerned about making the right engineering *decision* (or business decision, depending). Did I consider all the variables? Did I make the right choice for a vendor? etc. Harder calls to make, maybe, but I never wonder if I'm a bad person for choosing vendor 'X' over vendor 'Y'. :-)
Nancy Grace will be going after the “tot mom” in 3..2..1..
Blaming the dead baby’s grandfather worked in the Anthony trial, establishing ‘doubt’ about his daughter’s guilt. These lawyers get mighty desperate with lousy cases and will try to pull absolutely anything out of the hat, caring not a whit about this woman’s life that has already been wrecked.
If she wanted to do away with her baby for insurance purposes or any other reason, there are other ways to do away with the baby like smothering it in the crib or any other number of other “accidents”. I’m not buying it.
Interesting defense, I wonder if he has the evidence to back it up.
“But even if a teen was hired as a killer, he would be probably smart enough to shoot from a hidden place, secure the retreat, to have an alibi, and to remain quiet.”
Have you seen the pictures of this guy?
IF (this is a big if) it was the mom and the kid was getting pressure, it’s possible he gave false information to save his own butt.
(I’m not saying this happened, just a possible scenario)
The defense just needs to lay a seed of doubt, they don’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has the duty to prove its case. It appears the prosecution has pretty solid evidence (including testimony of the other perp).
“The defense just needs to lay a seed of doubt, they don’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has the duty to prove its case. It appears the prosecution has pretty solid evidence (including testimony of the other perp).”
I dont expect they will have any trouble proving who shot the child, the issue is whether the mother had anything to do with it. For that they would need to show contact between mom and shooter, an offer of money, payment, etc. If they just have the word of the 2 ferals against the mother, they have nothing.
That won’t fly. They found the gun that the perp used and that his sister threw into the pond.
The mother was shot in the leg and the ear — she was able to do that.
And witnesses saw him running away.
And the little thug gave him up.
Any jury member that would believe that the mother did it needs to be investigated and tossed.
That was my point... the defense doesn’t need anything, they can just throw out any scurrilous accusation they want. Prosecutors can jump up and down to no avail. I’m not sure but I suppose the public defenders are hoping to get life instead of Ole Sparky. There’s too much evidence to convict the perp, so they have to be after amelioration at this point.
“That was my point... the defense doesn’t need anything, they can just throw out any scurrilous accusation they want.”
This is sort of a burn your bridges defence strategy. Even if they prove the mother paid them to do this they are still guilty but are trying to take her down with them. If it works they might get a lighter sentence but if they are lying that would just pizz off the judge. Either way the mother is not on trial here, yet.
I think the kid said at one point that he did it, but that he had been hired by her to do it or at least to give a plausible circumstance in which the baby could have been shot “by accident.”
Remember, none of the people involved in this are rocket scientists. Low level criminals like this always think they’re going to get away with the most insane, transparent stuff. And they also do it for very cheap: think of all the people you read about getting arrested for trying to hire a hit-man to get rid of wifey or hubby...for $500 (or in one case that I remember reading, for the odd sum of $150).
So while I don’t know enough about the case to say that this is what happened, it certainly is possible. In any case, the end result was terrible.
But I thought lawyers had some standards.
So who’s the lawyer? Saul Goodman?
“So who’s the lawyer? Saul Goodman?”
No.
He is a county government taxpayer paid public defender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.