I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
It was, but the plaintiff lawyer never once implied intentional wrong doing.
The closest they came was the county intentionally making the printer change, which the county later admitted using the logic that what broke the printer was just an attempt to fix them without going into detail what was even broken from certified configs.
They left so much on the table. And I gotta wonder why?
Everyone knew it would go to appeals. Maybe by doing everything but accusing the murderer of murder allows some sort of legal maneuvering?
The witness for Lake did say it could only be done intentionally. The lawyer cannot himself make a statement of fact like this. The response would be an objection form the defense with the judge siding with the defense and cautioning the prosecutor.
Maybe it’s a double jeopardy sort of thing? Scientist, not a lawyer.