RDI: What's the problem?

[DeeDee249]

Excellent points, Ami. And therein lies the problem with prosecuting the parents in this case. So much seems to point TO their involvement (or at least their knowledge). But it isn't a slam-dunk by any means. There are a lot of conflicting issues and "why-would-theys".

 

[BBB167893]

Can't agree with you on this point, unfortunately. Money talks. Influence, power, connectedness count, big time. BIG, big time. Is it a fact that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest between two of the lawyers?

Thank you.

 

[DeeDee249]

Can't agree with you on this point, unfortunately. Money talks. Influence, power, connectedness count, big time. BIG, big time. Is it a fact that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest between two of the lawyers?

It IS a fact that the lawyers on the defense team were in personal and business relationships with DA Hunter. They belonged to the same Country Club and socialized regularly. They were friends. I read that they shared ownership of some real estate. It was one of the reasons that the DA's office gave unprecedented "favors" to the defense. Disclosure takes place only after an arrest/indictment. But the R's defense team was made privy to much that should never have been given to them.

Hunter should have recused himself from this case as soon as the Rs hired those lawyers. Had that happened, this case may actually have had a shot at an honest resolution.

 

[PrintGal]

My problem is not represented by the options. I go with DAs office. Could potentially fall under money rules, but not specific enough.