I see that in addition to evading questions when you are losing arguments, you also engage in ad hominem childish insults. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weak-minded.
You say “I understand where Lakin’s defense attorney is going with this. I am inclined to agree with his approach.”
Please explain what you mean. What exactly about Lakin’s “lawyers’ approach” do you agree with?
Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?
Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?
Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?
Which part of his bizarre approach is it that you agree with?
I’m pulling the poseur card on you buddy. Cite your bona fides, otherwise expect to be properly and forevermore ignored.