- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 4,410
According to Wiki, it is an anonymous blog reporting cartel crimes. Blog del Narco - Wikipedia
They also have videos of heinous acts. I'm taking Wiki's word for it.
Not FFSing you my friend, FFSing the idea of joggers with guns.
They will victim blame, it works because the victim isn't there to defend themselves. The killer can say anything he wants, and she's not there to correct the record. They'll paint him as Ghandi and that only works if she's somehow deserving of being attacked. It's what works because inherently everyone wants to feel safe and feel it can never happen to them, so the defense sells you on why it happened to her but won't ever happen to you. That only happens through blaming the victim, i.e. she yelled at him, she frightened him, she threatened him so he acted in some sort of self defense so if YOU don't act that way you won't get killed while out in public. Everyone on here has thought "what can I do different to make sure this doesn't happen to me". We've talked about pepper spray, bear spray, box cutters, self defense classes, not running alone, not running at all. It's not a leap to sell that safety in a bottle to a jury too. Secondly he'll play on "perception". We won't be able to call him a killer, that's nasty, we'll call him a misguided young family man. We won't call it murder, we'll call it a mistake. Change the words, the rhetoric will follow. It's why we've changed from using "illegal aliens" to "undocumented immigrants". We're all immigrants, and therefore it's changed perception by changing the language, it's no longer "illegal" it's just missing documentation. The same with this. He's not a killer any more, he's a hard working family man who made a mistake. My worst fear is that this will somehow get downgraded to aggravated assault, because this atty isn't stupid no matter how badly he dresses and he's already throwing around words like "perception".
Unless the defense attorney puts their client on the stand, and I doubt the attorney is that stupid, they have to present evidence of another person being involved. Juries, at least in AZ, are instructed to NOT consider opening or closing statements as evidence. They are also instructed to take into account a witness's credibility. I cannot see the monster testifying under oath. It seems pretty stupid.Yes, but the defense could say he was there at the field when she was dumped but isn't the one who stabbed her. Or, someone told him were the body was or even showed him, but he didn't dump her there.
And, CR didn't confess to stabbing. The lawyer is sure to use that in his defense case.
Again, I think CR is the perp.
But the defense team will make the prosecutors prove every single detail. The defense lawyer is not going to say, "Well, CR lead LE to the body so guess he did it." No way. The defense lawyer will poke holes in everything and the prosecution is working right now to make sure no holes can be poked. The confession is not enough, imo.
I think it's worthwhile to think like the defense team - and to think like the prosecutors - now that we're over the shock of learning about what happened to Mollie. Otherwise, we'll have page after page of "he's such a monster!" Yeah he is, but we can take this discussion further now.
jmopinion