O'Reilly's contention is that what the lawyers posited was not a theory; it was a lie and O'Reilly proved that they knew the truth.
You see, we are in the unique position of knowing that the lawyers knew Westerfield was guilty because they were arranging for deal which included revealing where the body was.
I don't believe that O'Reilly would argue with your position if he believed the attorneys didn't know, but we know the attorneys knew and they fabricated a lie to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.
Challenging the admissibility/interpretation of the evidence, the expertise of expert witnesses is part of their constitutional duty, not creating scenarios out of thin air, in my view.
But they make up crap all time! If this is true, and the actions of the lawyers were illegal, why didn't the prosecution demand sanctions at the time???? Obviously THEY knew, because the reports say they were plea bargaining, right?
What if they didn't know he was guilty? Could they THEN fabricate the lie? These arguments against the defense don't seem to coincide with the desired spririt of justice, with its attendant vigorous defense.
I'm not sure O'Reilly or the Tribune report "proves" that. I have not read the Tribune report itself, however. From what I know, defense lawyers almost never ask their clients if they are guilty, for exactly the reason set forth in this controversy. The possibility exists that Westerfield offered them that information, but that is not revealed here. Any "deal" that is "brokered" by attorneys would have to be brought back to the client for his approval. It would be then that the lawyers would broach the issue of Mr. Westerfield's guilt or innocence with him.
I guess what I am asserting is that it is possible that Mr. Westerfield's lawyers never knew of his guilt, because they did not have the opportunity to bring the plea deal to their client.