I Support BettyKath

February 8, 2013

Friday, February 8, 2013

I support BettyKath’s right to ask the questions that occasionally cut against the grain of group-think. She thinks like a criminal defense lawyer and I respect that.

I not only respect what she says, I think we need to listen to her voice because she forces us to consider or reconsider our ideas and that can only make us stronger.

Trolls do not respect evidence-based thinking or exhibit any sign of intelligence organized by critical thinking skills. They believe the First Amendment gives them the right to make false statements, engage in character assassination and otherwise insult and attempt to derail thoughtful discussion. Their god is deceit and they are not welcome in my house.

BettyKath makes us think and she does it respectfully. She is welcome in my house and she should be accorded dignity and treated with respect.

Disagree with her as much as you like, but do not make it personal.

If someone disagrees with you and you take it personally, you are allowing your ego to get in the way.

Now is the time to let that go. No one is right all the time.

The scientific method consists of testing theories by experiment, attempting to reproduce the experimental results and peer review of both that is published in scientific journals. BettyKath is performing the peer review function that we should welcome rather than criticize.

We have an adversary system. Prosecutors build cases. Criminal defense lawyers attempt to tear them down. Judges referee the battle.

We seek justice for Trayvon in his case, so we are on the prosecution side. I hope to find a case where compelling evidence supports a defendant’s claim of innocence. We can share the experience of focusing on pulling loose threads to see what happens and delight when the prosecution’s case unravels and collapses.

In the Seattle-King County Public Defender’s Office where I began to learn the art of trying cases, we used to say the sweetest expression in the English language is “Not Guilty.” I hope we will have an opportunity to participate in a group experience working the defense side in a case and share the orgasmic delight from hearing those two words.

I can think of no better way to learn that we see what we want and expect to see. Belief and perception are one. What we call reality is a fabric woven out of our biases and prejudices. When prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers look at a case, they see different things.

So do jurors and the art of jury selection involves “seeing” what they see and eliminating those who will not see what you want them to see.

I do not criticize MOM’s efforts to find evidence that will help the defense and, like Judge Nelson, I think

I criticize MOM’s decisions to let his client drive the bus, to try his case in the court of public opinion and his emphasis on exploring rabbit holes. Those were terrible mistakes that have damaged the defense reducing public and financial support while wasting an enormous amount of money and time.

If brains were axel grease, his client wouldn’t have enough to grease the dynamo on a lightning bug’s ass.

MOM should have spent his time, effort and money on silencing his client, investigation and expert witnesses. There is no mystery about that. Every reasonably competent and experienced criminal defense attorney knows that those three priorities are the Big Three in every case.

Chasing rabbits down holes in the ground is equivalent to betting the ranch in a high stakes poker game that you will fill an inside straight on the draw.

You have attend to the important matters first and leave chasing rabbits to LSD trips.

A long time ago, I said that I thought MOM had a conflict of interest because his selfish interest in self-promotion in a high profile case was conflicting with his duty to vigorously represent his client’s best interests.

He is not ready for prime time.

He is hurting his client.

That is why I criticize him,

%d bloggers like this: