gumchew
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 5,505
Snipped for focus.
That wasn't the question the judge asked.
"Mr. Means have you ever represented any of the alleged co-conspirators that are set forth in the criminal complaint?”
Means: "No your honor. Other than Mrs. Daybell"
Whether he can legally and/or ethically proceed is a different conversation. You know the legal portion far more than I. My issue is more so the response.
The fact he stated on the record that he was representing CD does not align with his response to the judge's very pointed question.
He could've answered yes and rambled on about having represented CD in the past and it not being of relevance. Would it not have been better than just lying?
It's interesting that you assume that he lied. Sure, we can assume ill intent all day long on the part of our primary actors here in this case (CD, LVD), but it wouldn't occur to me to assume that Means was lying. He should have been prepared to answer this question more fully, and he should have qualified his response with more complete information, and not doing those things makes him sloppy. I just can't imagine that he would have had the temerity to lie to the court over something that could so easily be verified, as evidenced by Wood's subsequent objection.