Yellow Rose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,535
- Reaction score
- 34,901
Here for this beautiful soul, Gannon.
I might be wrong but I think that the defence lawyers are just making sure they do a thorough job of 'testing' the prosecution evidence. e.g. pointing out to the court that the prosecution 'assumes' that LS was the one who washed her shoes, and threw out the candle, etc in the bins. But that it's not necessairly proven. As you say, this may go towards attacking the prosecution's 'she was perfectly in control of trying to hide the evidence'.I think it's odd, too, but I wonder if they're going to try to look as though LS was in such a state of insanity, that HH had to help her do simple things, like purchasing cleaners?
Maybe they'll try to say if LS was sane, she could have/would have done all those things herself?
MOO
That is my take as well. They're doing the bare minimum, but they are doing that.They don't want to be the lawyers who earned their client an appeal because of their own failure to cover basic police procedure and so on.
Apparently I’m behind. Where did this info come from? TIAWow, so Harley's gonna testify to her mom's sanity.
The attorney said so in his statement. Of course, she may not follow his suggestion but I'm guessing they've heard her say something to that affect. Hope they have it on tape.Apparently I’m behind. Where did this info come from? TIA
Thank you. I did miss that. Well, HH’s testimony is going to be very interesting.The attorney said so in his statement.