I'm curious how the defence intend to create a rationale for AM lying about being at the Kennels. I feel they need something for a juror to latch on to, no matter how tenuous.
A significant issue for me, in determining whether there is any reasonably possibly true version for the defence, is that the obstruction of AM begins in the very first minute after the 'discovery' of the bodies.
He begins to mislead by omission, immediately during the 911 call which begins only 20s after he reaches the scene, and heavily once first responders arrive.
What can be the thought process here? It's not like he has had a chance to think anything through. And he has a solid alibi, so what possible innocent explanation can there be?
I don't see how you make it work.
A significant issue for me, in determining whether there is any reasonably possibly true version for the defence, is that the obstruction of AM begins in the very first minute after the 'discovery' of the bodies.
He begins to mislead by omission, immediately during the 911 call which begins only 20s after he reaches the scene, and heavily once first responders arrive.
What can be the thought process here? It's not like he has had a chance to think anything through. And he has a solid alibi, so what possible innocent explanation can there be?
I don't see how you make it work.