Or, Quailfoot was just looking at all of the information made available and using logic, instead of emotion, to deduce.
You have to understand what a defense attorney does, then understand what the State Bar of Texas expects a defense attorney to do, then look at the circumstances of the arraignment.
This isn't rocket science. It's more like Hello Kitty coloring book.
Part of the problem here is that there is no real investigative journalism occurring. I think that is partially due to news organizations not having enough money to have dedicated crime reporters/journalists.
Instead, you have them just throwing someone out there when the police or prosecutors say, "Hey, we're doing this." So, reporter assigned this time just goes out there and regurgitates what the police and prosecutors say, without a single ounce of doubt in what they say or do. In other words, they simply become a Press Release for the police and prosecutors.
Old time investigative journalists would cultivate connections with everyone involved - and, potentially involved. Back in the day, it was like a race to see who could crack the case sooner - the police or the crime reporter.
Sadly, those days are gone. So, we are stuck with rumor and innuendo. But, you can still apply logic to what you are hearing, reading, and seeing. If...you want to.
Logic dictates that a defense attorney, hired/paid, would have, according to his or her duty under Texas and Federal Law, vigorously defended his or her client beginning with the arraignment. Here, we don't even have one reporter or anyone else stating that an attorney was even present at the arraignment.
Then, day after day after day of no attorney being listed. It's not a riddle. And, if it's simply a "clerical error," someone must have a very frozen computer to not just login in and type "Johnson, Paul" into the little blank.
Use your brains. Everyone in their heart wants CM found and justice to be served. But, when you let your heart get out in front of your head, you lose focus on what's important.