Yes it’s based on facts... but it fills in the gaps in a way that - IMO - tells a story that’s aligned with CW’s innocence (relating to the 2 girls).
People have assumed that if something isn’t listed in the affidavit, it didn’t happen - which is not necessarily true - and, IMO, are underestimating the nervousness and anxiety and panic of a man who’s just killed his wife.
This is not MY position - I am not demonizing anyone or victim blaming - and I am not looking to get into any back and forth about the details - I just thought it would be an interesting exercise to pretend this was MY case, and these were the only facts in existence. How would I tell the story?
And I was quite surprised at how well it came together - in a way that I think could be relatable to a jury.
It’s a good (necessary) exercise for an attorney - but it’s a good exercise for anyone, actually. Strip away all your assumptions and look at the bare facts - not the conclusions you have drawn from them - and ask yourself how you would tell the story from the other side’s point of view, acknowledging the facts we have but also filling in the gaps in a way that is not inconsistent with those facts. How might you explain his actions in a way that aligns with his innocence (regarding the girls)? Same with his demeanor during the interview? His choice of disposal site?
I would rather challenge others to do this than give you my narrative - because I’m sure there are actually endless variations on it, with details I wouldn’t have thought of.
Very interesting, but I think there is exceedingly difficult evidence for the hypothetical defense to overcome, should no further evidence be available. It is almost superhuman to go from the complete and utter devastation of finding that your wife just murdered the kids that he says are his life to a cold, calculated cover up from your rage induced murdering of your wife, by the same means used to kill your children. Since we are assuming only facts currently available in this scenario, there would be no clear evidence of who killed the children, completely due to their disposal in crude oil for days at our client's hands. The prosecution would argue that the entire story is the only one that a cornered guilty man could come up with to mitigate his culpability, a man who lies to the police, friends, family, a worried public, to deflect blame entirely, and then when caught red handed and has to figure out a way out of the mess he created, came up with yet a new story to fit the evidence. I just do not think a reasonable jury would take kindly to the idea that a man who go from absolute rage to singular minded, cold, calculated, rehearsed cover up within one hour. The (chillingly proactive) messages by text and call to his dead wife that morning (within just hours of this nightmare scenario) and the calm plea for someone in the public to come forward would be so very damning. Moreover, as many have stated here, the dumping of the bodies of the girls he claimed were his life (in media interview) in crude oil, separately, will be another huge hurdle for anyone to relate. Last, not calling 911 when everyone knows that medics can work miracles we mere non-medic mortals simply cannot to try and save children that by his own story died within moments of his notice is another hurdle. Add in the affair and an expert for the prosecution on how seemingly normal fathers have been known to annihilate when financial and affair issues were present, and I think I'd be loathe to have the job of putting on his defense...not because I thought he was guilty (everyone deserves a rigorous defense) but because, given the facts that we know and those only, it is an incredibly uphill, herculean job. I think the story of a jilted woman killing her children is feasible, perhaps even the rage killing immediately after (assuming he contends he tried to save them and she was fighting him) ...BUT it's the nexus of these events followed by an immediate cold, calculated, unemotional and singularly focused cover up that is just a bridge too far to sell. Just IMO. I completely understand trying to present someone afraid, cornered, searching for a way out of the mess in his story - but despite what many here believe was a botched cover up by him (and it was), there are too many elements of calm, calculated, and cold in the immediate aftermath to get a jury to relate to this man's story. They need to see themselves in his situation and see how they could do it or their husband could do it given the story...and I just do not think that most people will find it relatable and, hence, believable. But what a great exercise! What does everyone else think?
Watching him testify in the Caylee Anthony trial was so great he gets so excited about science!
