Back to that bombshell of a defence 136p memo.
Apart from the ramble, general lack of focus, and less than helpful loose non-legal phrasing and language (which do not present a credible impression, far from it) - there are a few other problems I have with it.
a. Drawing a pretty much unfounded and unnecessary conclusion that the crimes were Odinistic ritual sacrifices.
I mean, come on. It would have been much better to just present the facts that there were a bunch of guys looked at early on in the investigation that were acting as a white supremacist gang under the guise of pagan/ Odinist colours. Then you can point to the other things that are/ appear Odinist etc and ask LE what they made of this rather than jumping to ritualistic sacrifice yourself,
Seems deliberately sensationalised, presumably to get broader media coverage.
b. Attempting to suggest that the only way that the perp and victims could have gotten from the bridge to the place they were found was by wading through 3-4 ft high water across Deer Creek, and that they must have all been soaking wet.
There's plenty of anecdotal descriptions that if you know where to cross that you can pretty much hop across in a much shallower crossing point and not have to wade or anything like that.
Also if the perp was RA as P alleges, then rather than 'muddy and bloody' (witness SC did not say bloody apparently...) he would have been dripping wet from pretty much the chest down as he is only 5'4" tall? Where's the witness of the dripping wet guy?
c. Using hearsay about what Liggett is alleged to have said privately to further the notion that one person alone could not have committed these crimes
I get why the D would want to support this idea as it muddies the waters about their client acting alone and tries to lead people more towards multiple actors (which they say RA has no connection with, ergo it isn't RA I suppose they would suggest). But why use Liggett and in such an unsubstantiated way? Not the strongest of arguments or reasoning here.
This leads me on to -
d. The pages of overcomplicated and entirely supposition, scenario of how one actor couldn't possibly have abducted, murdered, and staged the crime scene by themself.
I mean fine, if you want to offer that idea then okay I'm open minded, but the 92 point blow by blow suggested account of what it would take if one person alone were the perp is not the best way of suggesting that notion. Its too unwieldy and has too much verbal imagery of how the girls might have been handled which is just 'ugh' and also distracts from the point they are making.
If you're trying to make the 'couldn't be a lone actor' point then why not instead quote from cases and experts who have some credibility and basis in fact rather than an overly graphic 'what if'?
e. Not a lot of the above, which I've outlined my problems with, does much (or has anything to do with) building/ supporting a case that Ligget and NMcL lied and obtained a SW under false pretences
As I've repeated previously, this is a big deal and a major no-no for D to so without having overwhelming evidence and recipts to back it up with. The D do go into some detail elsewhere in the 136p (which I tend to think is much better described and argued, but could have been done better I think in the hands of some-one more skilled and experienced).
Its just that points a to e, problems aside, probably belong somewhere else.
There's no mention of the bullet either (they mentioned pretty much everything else!) which is noteworthy. I suspect plan A is to try to get the SW evidence tossed (pretty much no chance as the bullet ties together a lot of the state's circumstantial case); and plan B is line up experts against the ejector marks being reliable/ admissible in court.
So, whilst I've criticised NMcL for being inexperienced and perhaps out of his depth IMO, there are significant parts of the D memo which are pretty ill-judged and very badly written.
No wonder they wrote the supplementary filing, and this was much more legally and maturely framed and written.
Agree - I'm no expert but - agree that this murderer, whoever it is - it's ONE guy. IMO - ONE guy with a lot of energy and some imagination, apparently.
Defense has a couple of objections;
1) why look at my guy while you all know the evidence points to a lot of other who are not my guy ... for example ... the staging/runes stuff ... and you failed to collect the evidence and then and you ran down that road and quit! (Why did you quit?! I'm gonna bring that crap in front of the jury.)
and
2) my guy needs to get out of this prison and wait time up to trial in an environment where there are no white nationalist guarding him 'cuz my guy is on meds and he's having a really really hard time and I'm afraid he's gonna kill himself from this stress, this threatening environment, and his mental condition.
My impression (after the long reading slog) was that: the expert presented by defense doesn't think it's an odenistic ritual killing; but two experts (by the way - same experts originally used by LE investigators) agree that it's staged to look like it could be, by an individual who is familiar with such germanic runes ... likely familiar with the modern adoption of this symbology by some of today's white nationalist groups.
So my take away was that ... while this is an overdone lesson in odenism for the Judge ... the purpose being to draw attention to the shoddy investigative process that lost so much potential evidence. And the suggestion that the investigation should have taken a serious microscope to local white nationalists.
The shoddy investigation - is one of the things the defense will be arguing.
The effort to pull the guards' patches into odenism theory is a BIG REACH; but I took that angle as saying ... local white nationalists could be suspects here ... and the intimidation of RA by his guards may be linked to the fact that the defense thinks white nationalists should have been "looked at".
We're all aware that white nationalists don't go around murdering little white girls ... a good reason to object strenuously to that theory.
Now here comes along the defense. Years after LE investigators addressed briefly but abandoned that theory (phew?) ... the defense is drudging it up once again.
It's a stretch that the guards are objecting to this particular theory of RA's defense. But the patches they wear ... and their tacit admission that they practice "heathenry" (often co-opted by white nationalists) ... opens the door for the defense's next important objective:
GET RA TRANSFERRED out of that prison while he awaits trial.
That's a lot of bunny trailing but ... ya do what defense can do when ya don't think your client needs to sit in a hole visited by white nationalists with tasers when part of his defense is finger-pointing at white nationalist.
I should probably edit all that, no time, my apologies. All very interesting and consternating; thank you for the opportunity to chat about it!
