Would DeCoste be so vocal, calling the idea that there may be a connection, “preposterous” and “wholly unreliable”, if they were just waiting on the best deal for Magbanua, as some have maintained, who would then say the connection is real?
If she accepts a plea deal and confesses to something that even her attorney thinks is “preposterous” and “wholly unreliable”, why would anyone believe her? Why would a jury believe her?
It seems that the A’s defense team could then use his statements to cast doubt on the truth of Magbanua’s confession. It almost sounds like he is working for the defense to undermine a possible future confession
Or maybe this is not admissible or something? I need to watch more TV