Not that I am aware of.
Instead, he's trying to prove he did not intend to kill those two people. The Arson Charge is what appears to be at stake here, which could get him a life sentence.
Why is there such a disconnect here? Why isn't Ted claiming his innocence?
Nita's explaination is plausible, and if that's the argument we can leave it at that. I would only add that its just as plausible is that it might be true.
It is apparent to me that he did not intend to kill those people, nor burn the place down. But I do not see him fighting the confession that he wanted to look good to his client, and therefore made up the invasion.
And please try to be civil, if you can possibly be at all . I explained how the title came to be, and even apologize for it if you were offended. I have not attacked anyone in this forum in anyway. You spout off how you want people to be educated, yet you appear deeply afraid of questions and counter-information in regards to this topic.