I know you’re not defending her Anna. My problem is that there is NO recognition or acknowledgment on her part that there might be a problem or that the law has evolved. She says she didn’t want to defend this guy but she went ahead and did so. OK — fine. The request for a psych exam for that child was out of bounds and NOT done at the time at least in the case of violent assaults and children. The three methods were as I put. “No penetration,” — someone else did it, and “it didn’t happen.” This is her pattern. She does whatever it takes to “win” regardless of what “winning” means to others or her own integrity. She is ultra conscious of saying anything that might get her in legal trouble under many circumstances, but not all. Even I know it was unwise for her to aver she knew the defendant was guilty and laugh about him passing a polygraph. If this were the ONLY thing one might understand it. But it’s the pattern. She acts in an extremely overzealous fashion (at best). That affadavit contains information it is literally impossible for her to have known; therefore it must be fabricated. Such was unnecessary. It’s over the top and shows her priority was on “winning” at any cost. Some people say this is what attorneys should do.
Johnnie Cochran had some powerful things to say about justice and truth telling in the courtroom. He was able to defend without lying.