D
Deleted member 229974
Guest
D's not deflecting the evidence against RA, which imo is a fatal error, but perhaps one beyond their control in that it cannot be deflected. If the D chooses to ignore the evidence posed by the P against their client, they can't really espouse some wack alternative theory that falls on its face. It has to have some teeth to it.
But that's just what they're doing, they are indeed espousing these wack theories, and these wack theories are falling on their face. And D's point of refuge will be-- appeals. It "shoulda been" the Odinism.
Don't count on it. The judge knew what she was doing in this case. If you need any evidence of that, look at the "new" D strategy. Does it look convincing? Does it even dovetail with the prior theory? Were the current conspirators now being discussed by the D carpooling with the Odinists, and they had no room in the car for muddy bloody BG? So he was hanging out on the road walking to his own vehicle-- really??
Or does it look like D's throwing darts to desperately find something that doesn't hit "Rick"?
