Right after the lunch break we heard defense lawyer Jose Baez utter the words “The defense rests”.
How good a job did they do? Have they introduced ‘reasonable doubt?
A trial in someways is like an Agatha Christie book. Clues are littered throughout the book, it is up to the reader to determine the ‘red herrings’ from the real deal.
Like an Agatha Christie book there has to be a plot. Obviously the State and the Defense have differing ideas on what that plot may be. The winner is he (or she) that can come up with the most persuasive story that fits the facts.
As a book reviewer I look for many things, but a fundamental one is a Beginning, a Middle, and an End.
The prosecution fulfilled those requirements (well mostly), they had a story to tell. It was not perfect, but it did hang together.
The defense on the other hand just assembled a ‘rag tag’ series of stories that had neither a beginning, a middle, nor an end.
It was (in my opinion) a poor choice to ‘Pop Tart’ the witnesses. Get them on the stand, let them spill their guts, and get rid of them! Instead Jose Baez insisted on bringing them back time after time.
As any author knows, you have to end your story with a punch! That did not happen in court today. In opening statements Jose Baez told the jury that they would hear salacious evidence of sexual molestation, also how the ‘Morally corrupt’ Meter Reader Roy Kronk secreted the body for several months.
Maybe I was taking a bathroom break, but I do not recall hearing the defense team explore these issues in any depth. Sure, they broached them, but found the door shut.
The question I have bouncing around in my brain is did Jose Baez go too far in his opening statement? Had he just said ‘She died as a result of an accident in the family pool’, might he have found himself in a better situation today?
If things could not get worse,Â they did! A young man in the public gallery managed to incur the Wrath Of Perry. Jan has more on that here.
I am certain that a Cindy Anthony SMACK DOWN is coming.
And who really cares if George Anthony ‘dipped his wick‘?
It is all fun ‘National Enquirer’ stuff, but does it help solve the riddle?