I keep seeing a statement that " We all know lawyers can't lie."
I have provided information from the American Bar Association that while lawyers can't lie, they don't have to tell the truth.
So, with that in mind I see the Defense's request for the SW to be thrown out as the definition of being truthful and also being dishonest.
They obtained information that shows that early on, a possible connection between the murders and occult activity could have been a factor. Several people were looked at. Police did their due diligence. They investigated this angle.
They found nothing to indicate that cult activity occurred.
That's great, because they followed through and could then make the call that they could move on and away from that scenario.
But the defense paints a different picture. They have taken the cult reference and added information that police have said does not play any part in their decision to make an arrest.
They have added details such as blood spatter being painted on a tree by the perpetrator Dipping his fingers into the open wound of a victims neck and painting a Fehu on a tree. Although we have not seen actual photos of the tree there are impressions made from the actual crime scene that we are able to look at. There is NOTHING that remotely looks like a Fehu or an attempt to paint one.
Can't we all see how the defense has taken ONE single portion of the crime scene and sensationalized it to fit a specific narrative that suits them and their pursuit of perpetuating a lie?
This is ONE, I repeat ONE example of how things are legal but are still not honest when it comes to painting a narrative.
I would just remind everyone that this is not just a story, this was the ending of the lives of 2 very young girls who went out for a walk on a snow day.
JMO