From: charlie
Date: 7/10/01
Time: 11:08:38 AM
Jasper, I can't say I disagree with you at all.
The defense stopped at reasonable doubt when they could have hit one out of the ballpark.
The question remains WHY? Did the lawyers believe he did it and they were watching their p's and q's?
Don't think so, but maybe.
They seemed to stop way short of that scenario.
So why? Perhaps it is time to think that a whole lot more was going on here than we know. Why would the defense work hand and glove with the prosecution to limit just how much "reasonable doubt" there was? And only reasonable doubt not actual exculpatory info?
Perhaps nothing about this case is what it appears to be.
charlie