Leader6518
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2006
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 2,624
Wtf does that mean?
The defense is doing what all DT do. They ask questions about events insinuating they have evidence when no evidence exists. It's all done to create reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter what a det or def thinks. What matters is the physical evidence. How/why and when something happened is not as important as what the evidence shows. She was in his car. He lied about everything until confronted wih evidence and then changed his story. He told different people different things and admitted to getting in a fight.
The defense will continue to insinuate things happened, but withuout evidence, it is just noise in the wind. Hopefully, the jury won't be fooled into believing words over evidence. And let me say, that if anyone actually had evidence of what really went down that night to exonerate EA, it would be EA and his DT and they would use it. Let's see what they bring to the table in evidence. And it should be more than insinuations. JMO