First of all, I don't know how Channon's dad holds himself together during this either. This tragic case was the stuff of your worst nightmares to begin with and the trials, Judge pill popping and potential and real retrials are just unreal. It beggars belief that all this has happened and continues to affect those families, my heart goes out to those two families.
As far as believing the nonsense goes, remember Casey Anthony? I didn't think anyone would buy what Jose Baez was selling and they did. Unfortunately it just takes one or two to have doubt in their mind.
Unfortunately, the defence's job is to get the best possible outcome for their clients. I presume their thinking is, if they can make it look like Channon and Chris were involved in the drug scene, the crime comes across as slightly less horrific than a car jacking of total strangers. I am not American, so am not au fait with US sentencing, but could it affect the DP being given by the jury? Do I think that the defence should present a theory that is not backed by evidence? No I absolutely do not. I hope the theory is anihalated on the cross, which it was last time.
I think its absolute BS that the defence has taken this stance, as IIRR didn't the ringleader admit that a car jacking took place in his police interviews? Along the lines of he was there but did not do anything. I agree with William N, this tactic is trying to make the victims look bad and it absolutely stinks.
There was never any reliable evidence to say that either Channon or Christopher had ever met their attackers before and what the evidence does support was that this was a car jacking on two innocent people. I also hate to bring this up, but from reading reports of those have been in court and seen the evidence, it suggests that Channon absolutely did not have consensual sex with the attackers, so I am absolutely disgusted that the defence is yet again trying to say this was the case.
