A bridge too far for defense attorneys?

The Idaho murder victims (kmvt image)

Don't you all wonder how murder was ever prosecuted in the days before all the cool modern tools? We take for granted "surveillance cameras" being all over the place. Of course it's a good thing, good for deterring crime. But a part of me wonders too: how is it, after a horrific quadruple murder, that a sharp criminal defense lawyer seems poised to "shoot holes" in whatever the prosecution presents? 

Wasn't the probable cause affidavit pretty damning in the current Idaho case? And there's more to come with evidence also. DNA and surveillance cameras played into the current series of events. But here we are, left hanging. 

Does anyone think that the true murderer is not quite definitely in custody now? It's assumed by all, isn't it? But the guy who did the heinous act gets to spend months in public accommodations, his jail cell, while public $ compensates an indefatigable defense attorney. Don't we all sense that all this will go on ad nauseam? Many people are compensated with public money while the uncertain status quo is maintained. 

The status quo insists that the charged individual is "presumed innocent." Interesting that the guy is presumed innocent while being held under quite uncomfortable conditions - "claustrophobic," it is said - for a period of months. And we're told the next legal proceeding will be "in June." Many of us I'm sure were flabbergasted. 

Those who vent, like myself, can prepare to be scolded by those who say we must respect the proper legal process. We're lectured on how the defense just like the prosecution needs every opportunity to develop its case and strategy. 

 

So I'll "spill"

My inner thoughts are that the guy is definitely guilty. One is hesitant proclaiming as much. I'd be portrayed as ignorant about our legal system. I'm sure law enforcement was vigilant to the max in tracking down and arresting the guy. But what if there was some little flaw or irregularity in their procedure? So might we see the proverbial "technicality" that would allow the guy to walk? This happens. 

How could the guy even go back out into the world? 

We are truly in the midst of the "winter of the Idaho Four." Nancy Grace felt pressed to establish a headquarters right next to the murder home. Grace is a holdover from the "main stream media" days of crime reporting. She is used to being treated like a star. Let's observe that her star is fading. Her presence in Moscow, Idaho, is being met by resentment. 

The new media has opened the door for a slew of true crime people who may not be as polished in front of a camera as old Nancy. But they dive into the details with much greater sophistication. The sophistication reaches a level where I sometimes shake my head. What tools they can employ! Would have been unheard of in my youth. One's laptop screen becomes a cornucopia of sometimes-arcane insights. Naturally the young generation learns to take it for granted. 

A Door Dash order at 4 a.m.? What would people my age have done at 4 a.m. when we were young, if we were to wake up? Go to the bathroom maybe? What else? We take for granted now that one's mind can be totally stimulated at that hour, and virtually any other. One's brain could get over-stimulated, I would suggest. 

 

A gravy train maybe?

All this sophistication does not make it a slam-dunk for convicting the murderer. That's a huge irony. The legal "defense" will get dug in, its members prepared for the glare of attention. The bottom line for these people, really, is just for the process to roll on and on and on. Lots of people get compensated, lots of people get their names in the paper. We still have newspapers though I sometimes wonder why. 

"At the end of the day," as they say, what is likely to happen? If it's a death penalty case, heaven help us all. Taxpayers will cough up endless fortunes as the process rolls on. Why is the BTK killer still allowed to live? Why has he been interviewed for a book? I don't care what he has to say about anything. It's ditto for the killer in the Idaho case. I shall refrain from saying "alleged," and for that I'd be slapped up in a metaphorical way by certain people I know. 

What the hell explains the accused person's behavior as he fled east? Cleaning the car inside and out, putting trash in a neighbor's receptacles. Just normal innocent behavior? 

The case is stagnating in the media now and will largely remain in that state until June. Can you take it? The judge has issued a gag order. Media people have already begun to grope. The citizenry wants justice on the heels of this unspeakable crime. Instead we are left in sort of suspended animation. 

We "presume innocence" for the guy while he is kept locked up for months. 

 

Dylan Mortensen, survivor (ny post)

Lifestyle, values backdrop

Now, on to the four deceased and college youth in general: a lesson to be gleaned here, right? What kind of lifestyle are we encouraging or allowing with our youth ages 18-22? Isn't there a part of you that recoils at what is being portrayed? Such incredible "party" behavior with no sense of restraint. A "party house" where police have to go repeatedly because of noise, because the kids just don't give a rip? 

College ought to be instilling civilized standards. Up all night on Friday or Saturday? Why? What is all this rambunctious behavior accomplishing for these kids? Nothing. And it may in fact have a side effect of inducing risk. Proximity to drugs? The ubiquitous alcohol? The distraction of illicit, reckless sex? 

Was the murderer someone who felt rejected? He was once on heroin. Why do we even countenance "criminology" studies and majors? That was his thing. Do we really have to learn to "get inside the mind of a killer?" I would suggest that we just have to catch these people. 

For the BTK killer not to have been executed, is a flaw in our legal system. We will see the defense attorney in the Idaho case lick her chops and try to find any kind of inconsistency to exploit. To quote the cliche, "to find a hole big enough to drive a truck through." And I'm not saying that kind of hole cannot be alleged at some point. Do we have to have a flawless chronology of what happened that night? Anything less than that spells doubt and acquittal? 

"If the glove does not fit. . ." etc. So O.J. walked free. He was "not guilty." But a subsequent legal procedure on the civil level determined he was "responsible for the deaths." And lawyers would lecture me on how we can reconcile, and if you can't, well that's your problem. 

Again I ask: What the hell were the procedures in "the old days?" No DNA, no surveillance cameras, none of the funky stuff of today. You'd have to try to latch onto convincing circumstantial evidence, then pound away at a jury. It was necessary because society needs to be protected from murderers. That's the whole idea. It's not to facilitate Nancy Grace and the countless others of her ilk doing their "shows." And not to facilitate the overly histrionic defense lawyers, the ones who are self-serving and take their profession too far - a bridge too far - who like to go out on the courthouse steps and find the media microphones. So they can say "this is a bombshell" about some fairly inconsequential thing that might work in their favor. 

In the meantime, you all, let's try to clean up the behavior of so many of our U.S. young people ages 18-22, pull them away from their "Lord of the Flies" approach to life. Make them grow up.

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com