Why do you say that? It is entirely possible that they found exactly what is posted here. It is just not the job of a defense lawyer to debunk potentially exculpatory information. So long as it is presented in good faith - what the lawyer relates is what in fact happened - the decision as to whether it proves anything is for the Court. Were you a client facing the rest of your life in jail, would you want your lawyer to tell you that anything potentially exculpatory is BS? Especially if you have a live witness to whom you have spoken?LPC wrote:It seems fairly clear that the 5-10 minutes spent searching by the average Quatloosian was 5-10 minutes more than was spent by the average Brown defense lawyer.
Just like any good defense lawyer.Of course, we're paranoid/suspicious by nature, so we check everything.
BTW, in any high-profile case stuff like this comes out of the woodwork. In the bombing case, one day we received a package from the govt, with a cover letter stating that the lengthy enclosures were provided per the govt's Brady (disclosure of exculpatory evidence) obligations. It contained letters blaming the WTC bombings on the usual assortment of space aliens, Zionists, Illuminati, and CIA agents. We had received most of them too, but pictured how the govt probably cackled over sending it to us. So, pursuant to our reciprocal discovery obligations, we did the same. The difference was that we knew that the govt was so anal that they probably assigned someone to spend a few days reading, indexing and bates-stamping it all.
And yes, a couple of the least delusional things were actually presented to the Court.