I've been asking that myself. It would be interesting to see a little more then those few minutes when he asked for a lawyer. I believe the interrogation would have lasted quite some time and video evidence of MS suffering from Crack withdrawal would definitely prove NS's claim that MS was a Crack Addict/Dealer. It's interesting to see how he came from a small time cigarette peddler at high school at the beginning of the trial to todays main focus, his big time Crack dealings and addiction. I would also love to see/hear AM's, SS's & MH's interviews and just how much and what was changed and possibly what lies had been told. Also DM, we have the letters to see how he was pondering his defence but exactly what was his angle at the onset. Could he also have asked for a lawyer as well??
It has never been brought into evidence that MS was a crack dealer in any shape or form, nor that he was a crack addict. That notion was introduced solely by DM's defence during a voir dire when AM was being questioned regarding his knowledge of other 'thievery'. It was brought up out of the blue and was denied.
I assume that since MSM has now released that tidbit, that this is no longer under a publication ban. This happened after AM was cross examined by TD during AM's testimony. DM's defence had an issue with TD's line of questioning (asking about other thefts that AM was aware of), and the jury was excused for legal arguments. RP expressed his concerns, the jury was called back and was told by the judge to disregard TD's last question of whether AM knew of any other thievery; then the jury was excused for the day and AM was immediately sworn in (again, as he had already been sworn in as a witness) on a voir dire. TD questioned AM on his knowledge of 'other' thievery. AM wasn't forthcoming by any means, and TD had to remind him of several things that he
did in fact know about, as seen from various texts, at which time AM would finally admit that yes, he did know about other thefts (such as the $3 DVD).
Then NS started questioning AM. Keep in mind that this was a voir dire to determine (under oath) what AM's knowledge of other thievery was. NS said he wasn't interested in the bobcat theft, but immediately took the opportunity to start in on a completely different subject, saying to AM:
NS: You knew that DM did drugs, and that MS did drugs. AM: yes.
NS: MS sold drugs. AM: yes.
NS: MS sold crack. AM: NO.
Judge admonished NS, saying they're not talking about drugs, this voir dire is about thievery.
Imo, it was just something that NS tried to slip in out of nowhere without any evidence whatsoever, it was denied, NS got admonished for doing so, and now, after the verdicts, this comes out in the press and people are left with the impression that it was a dark secret that everyone knows about but which was held back from the jury. No, it wasn't. It was merely a question asked (or a statement made) by NS, to which his reply was a vehement NO. These comments are from my own notes, having been present and taking notes that day.
The antics would almost be humorous if it weren't for how they end up getting reported in the press and the impressions it obviously leaves with readers, as seen here (example above, portion bolded by me) where we now have people stating that MS was addicted to crack and that he was a crack dealer as if it is fact. An entire story is concocted just because of a 'question' that a defence lawyer 'asked'.
It is scary, imo to think that even though told to disregard whatever a lawyer says as not being evidence, it can potentially be concocted into meaningful evidence in the ears of whoever hears it, and then repeated and embellished until it becomes a truth amongst many. moo
