From the article above by @afitzy:\
Snipped for focus.
“Our objective is to cast enough doubt on the state’s case such that we don’t have to face a murder charge,” Pattis said. “And we will go to the press and make that case.”
Notice that there is no statement that claims what Pattis brings to the press will be true or factual...just to cast doubt. IMO the press also has a responsibility to fact check their eloquent friend NP....
NP needs to be held accountable for false and misleading statements by the court and by the press, IMO....MOO...MOO!
1. So WE don’t have to face a murder charge. Think: premeditated, murder in the first degree. There are several other “murder” definitions. I’m not up on CT specifics, but NP was referring to the fact if we can just keep Murder One off the table, we’ve got a better chance to cast more doubt. And get him on a lesser charge, manslaughter, or even just guilty on illegal dumping.
2. True or factual is not NP’s job. It’s to cast sufficient doubt to acquit FD. And it’s not MSM job to fact check NP. Report what’s out there, being careful to not MALICIOUSLY report what’s known to be untrue. If they knew the truth, we wouldn’t need a trial on the merits.
3. Why should NP be held accountable for court and media statements? HE didn’t report the false and misleading statements. He’s made claims, no doubt. Are they false? Maybe they are true? Are they misleading? Or leading the audience to consider other scenarios. If we don’t know what is false or true, then the statements cannot by their very definition be leading or misleading. Bc one statement can lead to either truth or falsehood. And the reverse statement, can lead to truth or falsehood. The statements are hypothesis. They need to be tested. Then determined if they are a theory. A theory, FYI, is not a guess. The hypothesis is the educated guess. Once proven, and repeatedly reproduced with the same results, it’s a theory.
So the hypothesis is that there is mixed DNA on kitchen faucet. And it FD and JD. Ok? So what? What does it prove? Nothing but mixed DNA.
But we find mixed DNA in the garage. Ok, mixed DNA but in the garage, odd that it’s there and mixed bc FD does not live there. Bloody tee shirt and bra. Mixed DNA? Really odd place to find mixed DNA. And now the hypothesis is starting to turn into a theory. There is so much mixed DNA that there can be no question why it’s mixed. Beyond a reasonable doubt. State’s job. NP has to keep throwing credible explanations as to all of the mixed DNA samples. To create reasonable doubt. And keep that reasonable doubt alive throughout the trial.
College biology and philosophy make for strange bedfellows.
The words are often incorrectly used/reversed in conversational language.
Ok. Back to what?
NP. He’d probably make a great law school professor. Pony tail and all.
No, I’m not Team Fotis. Just giving you a hypothesis, that either can be true or false. It’s up to the State to turn it into theory. NP just needs to keep it in hypothesis state.
