From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   s   
   p   
   o   
   i   
   l   
   e   
   r   
      
   s   
   p   
   a   
   c   
   e   
      
   Lt. Brady's son is intimately involved with a murder victim, a female   
   musician with a daughter that he wants to adopt. Naturally, the mother   
   is directly involved with the investigation.   
      
   Her son is a recovering drug addict and blames his mother for tough love   
   she showed to force his recovery. The victim is still using drugs.   
   Someone in recovery really shouldn't be living with a drug user.   
      
   The son looks good for the murder. He jealous of her relationship with   
   her new producer and sent actual threatening messages. Why was he so out   
   of control angry? His alibi was taking care of the daughter, but of   
   course she was asleep during the murder.   
      
   The producer looks better for the murder as there's blood and DNA   
   evidence and he sent a threatening text message too. The case is really   
   weak as the forensic evidence can be explained. However, there is an   
   actual brick of cocaine and video footage of a duffel bag being   
   transported by the victim and the police found the drugs in the same   
   duffel bag at the victim's home. With the actual drugs, why not look for   
   a hard connection to the producer? Always charge murder first on weak   
   evidence; no drug charges.   
      
   Defense wants to use a theory of the crime that Brady's son did it and   
   his mother interferred; she did. There's inference but no evidence   
   against him. That's ok. There's case law that absense of evidence   
   doesn't mean the defense can't offer their theory of the crime.   
      
   In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to   
   introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the   
   duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative. It goes   
   to the prosecution's theory of the crime that was the motive for the   
   murder. Gosh, it's kind of important to get right.   
      
   Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence.   
   They need a better alibi from the son.   
      
   Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got   
   drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his   
   testimony on the stand.   
      
   If Brady hadn't interferred with her son's initial questioning, the   
   detectives may have been able to force him to provide his real alibi,   
   since he was too ashamed to tell his mother he fell off the wagon and   
   neglected the girl.   
      
   Brady told her son she won't support his custody petition.   
      
   Odelya Halevi does not appear.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)