[parsifal]

“It’s called blaming the victim. And Fish’s defense attorney would have done more of it if he had been allowed. He wanted to nitpick over a restraining order issued against Kuenzli by a former girlfriend, his mental health, and the fact that he’d threatened suicide in the past. The judge blocked such nitpicking.”

Restraining orders and mental health issues are hardly “nitpicking”. I wonder if defense attorney was being repetitive or was unable to get into evidence period?

parsy.

[marktwain]

The defense was unable to bring a great deal of evidence to the juries attention. The first investigator on the scene told the prosecutor that it was a clear case of self defense. The prosecutor took him off the case and appointed another to look into it. The prosecutor violated numerous rules when presenting the case to the grand jury. The appeals court ruled that he had acted improperly in the grand jury proceedings, and that the grand jury indictment was not legitimate. The prosecutor noted that he did not need to have a grand jury indictment, he could indict without one, so he did.

I have often wondered about the political motivations for this prosecution. The case was so clear that the legislature passed legislation four times to help Harold Fish. The judge ruled that the first one did not count because the act occurred before the legislation was passed. The next two were vetoed by Janet Napolitano, now head of homeland security. The last was signed by Governor Jan Brewer a couple of weeks ago.