"merely wanted to look like a hero in his wealthy employer's eyes when he set the fire, stabbed himself and cooked up a story about confronting two hooded intruders."
Is it your position that this is not true?
If so, then consider that the articles above indicate that the real argument is not about the issues you stated above, and making up the story, setting the fire and the stabbing are not debated. He is debating that he does not feel an Arson charge is warranted because he never intended to harm anyone and the incompetence/conspiracy of the Civil Servants and others should be blamed for the deaths. This is supported both by his handwritten statement and his letter to Prince Ranier. How do you explain Ted's motives in producing these two documents?
I believe this is what causes confusion amonst many people here.
Heidi, this is your business, but if I were an attorney involved in this case, I would advise you to refrain from commenting on this particular issue.
Jalapeno, respectfully, you have to understand that these threads are monitored by Monaco. They're probably hitting refresh every 30 seconds on this one. :-)
She can't be answering those kinds of questions right now. I know she wants to, but if she's smart, she won't comment specifically on Ted's defense issues.