I genuinely appreciate your input as an attorney.
I see what we always see…a tug-of-war between the defense and the prosecution.
But in this specific case, what is the rope that’s being yanked by both sides?
In this PARTICULAR case, not in every case, as a layperson I see facts, evidence, rule of law on one side, and fanciful narrative on the other with no concrete factual evidence that can be admitted.
I agree with you of course, the D must do everything within their power to get their client out of trouble. Where is something demonstrable that will undergird their push to overturn the judge’s ruling?
As I see it, the D had many flaws in their version of what happened. Their story conflicted with the physical evidence (scant blood at the scene, girls hung upside down, an F rune).
I thought JG was the one who had come to the playground and said “playtime is over.” I’m content to have the appellate court do that, if necessary.
Yet this is unbearable for the girls’ families who are still awaiting justice.
All JM layperson’s O.
@Arkay Good post! Thanks for your candor and kindness.
On the instant decisions, the two last decided by Gull, one side lays out the law favorable to them, the other lays out the law favorable to them. Neither issue has a black and white law, codified like a statute. It is common law, and thus requires interpretation. That is why I asked
@vinayd "what constitutes nexus?" The answer to that question governs one of the decisions. Lawyers (and I am including Gull, as she is one) often disagree. We have an adversarial system, and that is just the way it is.
In making your decision above, you mention lack of blood at the scene, girls hung upside down, F runes. So you accept the version of the State's witnesses. That is fine, but it is the jury's job to weigh evidence and determine fact, not the judge. The judge determines points of law.
There are certain points I agree on in Judge Gull's ruling, and in others I don't. That's fine, and our rules allow for attorneys that disagree to get another opinion, thus appeals.
I agree it is unbearable for the girls' families. No one can bring them back. It's a terrible thing. This isn't disputed. But RA represents every man and woman in this country (at least Indiana) who faces trial. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Imprisoning any man or woman for two years pre-trial in a prison (not jail) prior to having counsel, not allowing them counsel of their choice, not allowing them to put forth a defense, is unacceptable to me. In my opinion, it's not a search for truth anymore. I want to know what really, actually happened that day on the bridge. Not what the prosecution tells me, not what the defense tells me, not what the judge tells me, but what the evidence tells me. And I can't discern the truth when evidence is withheld for my consideration.
