- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 722
- Reaction score
- 6,066
I could go with that, except..Honestly, I respect what the defense is doing here. It frustrates the hell out of me of course, but they're the arguments I'd expect them to make in order to discredit the prosecution case. If you can't win with facts, stretch them as much as you can. Mislead, misdirect, confuse.
Let's throw out a scenario that an officer bizarrely unholstered his gun, cycled a round, and left it there. It works in theory, because (if I'm not mistaken), the sheriff's department does use the same caliber ammunition that was found at the scene.
Let's plant the seed that the investigation was sloppy, by implying that foreign hair was found in Libby's hand. That works because a hair was in fact found, albeit apparently female and almost certainly unrelated to the girls' killer.
Both of those are stretches, especially the former, but that's nothing like the stretch they're making by suggesting that the girls were removed from the scene, murdered, and bizarrely returned. This one I don't like, because very few people would fall for it, as it's as crazy as laughable. That one does work on some level though, as they can claim that searchers should have seen their bodies that night.
Yes, the burden is on the prosecution. But the defense has to do all they can to prevent them from reaching that burden. I'm sure as things progress they'll be able to get some legitimate shots, in addition to the more outlandish attempts at that.
It’s not a game.