Reply #73: hmmmmm... [View All]

[marions ghost]

so you are saying that in order to do damage control after the photos were released...that instead of coming out and saying what they're saying NOW (ie. this was a mistake), they all bloviated hard and claimed the photos exonerated the accused, and gave everyone the distinct impression that this would skewer the accuser at trial. So you are saying the defense lawyers KNEW that there was a "problem" with the photos but yet they went ahead and pretended that it proved innocence and planned to show them at trial? Is this not a way of obstructing justice?

These days I guess everyone accepts that lawyers don't need to abide by any ethical codes. Were there ever any ethical codes? (I'm not up on the history, only go by what I see happening now).

IF the pix were altered I wonder if it was only the accused who did that-- OR did they have some help?

Will the photos be discredited now, or will the prosecution have a chance to try to prove evidence-tampering? Or does it fall short of that?

I realize this is all speculative chat, nothing definitive. Just trying to get clear on how much legal damage has occurred, and to whom...