On 2013-11-24 20:23:19 +0000, sf said:

> Part of it has to do with how much money they have to spend on
> lawyers.

Part of it, and in some cases all o fit.

> You need look no further than a current case that involves a
> Kennedy relative, Michael Skakel. Yes, in spite of having the best
> lawyer money could buy at the time - his new lawyer just got him
> released from jail on bail by claiming his original lawyer didn't
> represent him adequately. What a crock.

He must have represented him adequately becaus he was expensive?

> He killed Martha Moxley and it's as plain as the nose on your face.

There are so many many things that are as plain as the on any of our
respective faces at any given time, based on what information we've
been given at the time. That's why we have 12 noses on each jury,
unless, of course less noses are needed.

One of the things that apparently loosened the grip on Skakel has to do
with an uncontested witness. Now contested, quite damning information
begins to crumble.

I'm not saying whomever Nancy Grace rules guilty before the trial
begins isn't truly guilty, mind you. Just giving the rationale by which
a (lying, thieving, likely on-the-take) judge might have use considered
it.