Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 119
I disagree that the three had failed alibis. Jason's was never presented in court so how can it be a "failed" alibi? His mother has discussed his whereabouts in various interviews, but his attorneys failed to present an alibi at trial. That doesn't mean he didn't have one; it's just further proof of insufficient council, IMO, not guilt.
Some claim Damien's was "failed" because he was unsure of his times and had to have his memory "refreshed" by his mother. IMO, that doesn't prove he or his mother were lying. It just proves that he had no reason to remember in precise detail his movements on that day. IMO, that makes him look innocent, not guilty!
As to Jessie, the fact that his alibi witnesses were confused on the stand during cross-examination only proves that the prosecutor's cross-examination skills were greater than the defense's redirect skills. IMO, it doesn't disprove the alibi. So, again, I believe that the three had alibis.
Some claim Damien's was "failed" because he was unsure of his times and had to have his memory "refreshed" by his mother. IMO, that doesn't prove he or his mother were lying. It just proves that he had no reason to remember in precise detail his movements on that day. IMO, that makes him look innocent, not guilty!
As to Jessie, the fact that his alibi witnesses were confused on the stand during cross-examination only proves that the prosecutor's cross-examination skills were greater than the defense's redirect skills. IMO, it doesn't disprove the alibi. So, again, I believe that the three had alibis.