I agree that Pattis has opened the door to alot of topics here but for reasons that I don't understand except in the context of arguing for change of venue down the line. I also think there is an aspect of smoke and mirrors and distraction to the Pattis Patter to have folks following the case take their eyes off the ball and instead attempt to follow his talking points. Perhaps the Pattis strategy will emerge down the line but right now as many have said I'm not sure that Pattis has done his client any favors based on what we have seen so far.
I also spent a good amt of time looking at the Pattis & Crew case load and I truly wonder if the small firm is spread way too think? Will have to do more research on their staffing levels relative to the Court calendars etc. The other thing I'm not clear on is how empowered the other firm members are to lead cases? We have seen Smith aka PT2 front and center but I don't know if he is off trying cases and whether the firm shuts down when Pattis is off working on a case as we have recently seen in Waterbury? Many unknowns here as to what resources the firm has to try a complex case and manage the overall litigation situation of FD who is now if civil, family and criminal court!
Following his talking points also takes the press away from investigating which is why I wish a gag order had been imposed early in this process. Look at how many times we have had to backtrack conversation on minor points because of Pattis! The entire narrative of MT polygraph I believe was a Pattis invention that I believe he had no direct knowledge of and might have come to him 2nd or 3rd hand as we know per Pattis that he called Bowman and Bowman wouldn't speak to him.