Recent content by horatio

It seems pretty clear that he thinks Burke/the family did it, or were at the very least, involved in the cover-up. This case got screwed right from the start, but it's not like it's a big 'whodunit' mystery like Jack The Ripper.

Burke didn't venture outside his room that morning to ask "What's going on?" Didn't ask any questions about where/how was JBR? This is SO odd. During the interview he doesn't say he was upset. He says he could see OTHERS were upset and he was trying to stop people from being sad. Hmm...

Burke reacted very oddly when Dr. Phil asked him if the note looked like his mother's handwriting. He didn't didn't really vehemently deny it. He picked one phrase, at the beginning of the document when the writing is most disguised, "Listen Carefully", and said it stood out as not appearing to...

Burke is not coming across very well in the interview. He's smirking a lot and pretty much only saying "I don't know. I can't remember.". Whenever he's asked about his mother, he paints her in the best light possible. No one is perfect, yet he has not a single negative thing to say about her at...

I believe it's been proven that the R's didn't know juveniles couldn't be charged until later on.

Found this in the Gawker comments on a post related to the Grand Jury indictment: Seems plausible to me.

Maybe because the killer thought it sounded like something that would be in a ransom note? Who really knows? You're deriving an entire theory based on a verb.

Describe to me the correlation between the note being long and detailed, and JBR being found in the house, because I'm just not getting it.

The point I am making is not about whether or not the defense knows guilt, I understand that part, the point I am making is that they can't argue something that they know in court to be false. They have to try and inject reasonable doubt into the prosecution's theory, but they can't argue...

That's a whole lot of speculation right there. What are you basing this on? How do you prove without a reasonable doubt that that is what he intended to do? You don't, because it's ridiculous and absolute conjecture.

You are wrong. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

Thanks for the info. To be clear though, a defense lawyer can't lie to the judge or jury about something they know you did though. They can try to poke holes in the prosecutions arguments and steer the case in a different direction, but they can't lie and say you didn't do something that you...

Who knows when that window was really broken though. It's at least enough for reasonable doubt, regardless of whether JR brought it up or not, it shows that there was indeed a way into the house that night. Moving the body is a huge risk, you only do so if you absolutely have to (eg. If JBR was...

Exactly. The risk of getting of moving the body outside is great. You can't explain away a neighbor seeing you dump the body. But, with the body inside the home, you point to a broken window and say "An intruder must have gotten inside". Not everyone will buy it, but couple it with a ransom note...

But wouldn't maintaining the lie constitute ongoing crimes? That is to say, every time someone is interviewed and claims that they didn't stage the crime scene, they are lying to the police/obstructing justice? Shouldn't that be a new crime/charge? I always thought attorney-client privilege...