stmarysmead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,302
- Reaction score
- 16,920
"The defense attorneys say the conflict is was due to something Sanford did or said, which was not specified and also because he had filed a complaint against them with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation."
I have been trying to think what Khari could possibly have said or done - maybe he swore at them? maybe threatened them? threw something at them? spat at them? several of these things? repeatedly?
My guess would be that it’s more in line with Khari’s ‘philosophy’ such as he described on his FB. Think about some of the terror suspects that have gone to trial here in the US. They believed in the righteousness of their actions. In some cases, they were adamant to have representation by those who adhered to their same worldview.
On the other hand, these were cold,heartless, violent murders of two people that had befriended him and supported him financially. This is a young man who marched them, terrified... at gunpoint, barefoot, in underwear or night clothes, down a path on a bitterly cold night. Talk about premeditation! He was savoring this. He might have killed them in their home, but he wanted to humiliate them, exercise his supremacy over them.
Think about what that says about Khari’s character and emotional sensibilities. Put that into his “philosophical mindset.” This is monster-level behavior. So, knowing all too well the specifics, he may have just made threats against these attorneys or their families. That would certainly result in a conflict of interest for attorneys trying to assist him on gaining back his freedom.