Replies

I am really not trying to simply be argumentative, but what is this scenario to which you keep referring? I watched the entire trial and never heard a "scenario" presented by the defense.

On whose and what information have you decided there was something tantamount to a confession? To my knowledge, all of this hyperventilating is traced to one lone newspaper and an UNCONFIRMED story.

I don't get it, unless you know something I don't.

Ok, by trying to say that the VanDamn's lifestyle was the reason their daughter was killed. That is the scenario they tried to sell the jury. The jury who was on O'Reilly said the same thing and that the lawyer was very, very good. And that's where the problem lies. The lawyers knew how the crime was committed and who did it. To falsely mislead the jury into thinking it was someone else's fault is where the breach of ethics comes in. Perhaps I'm not explaining it correct. If you can catch the O'Reilly rerun, please do so. Judge Andrew does a nice job of summarizing the code.