IMO you nailed it. There is one part of this whole process that rings a false note to me, over and over, which is the fact that the DA keeps playing to the crowd, but it's all bravado. Lots of talk about how strong the case is, how they might even seek the DP, how they have tons of evidence, lots and lots of talk.
Here he announces what they are considering, and there is no legal or procedural reason for him to have done so. In my experience, if you're holding 4 aces (either playing poker, or in court), you don't brag about what you might do with your hand. You just go through the process and play it out.
Repeatedly, his actions tell me he's trying to play to an audience, which raises lots of questions in my mind. My take is that he's either trying to gain points with the community for the next election, or create a reaction with the defendants.
Every DA that I have seen speak out tells the citizens and the victim's family when they are considering a death penalty.
It is known to the citizens before they decided whether to do it or not. He/she doesn't just spring it on the community. He is doing the exact thing he should be doing by having a team of death qualified experts to examine the case. That is the way most DAs do it.
So he is no different than any other DA who is deciding a case and whether it should be a death penalty case or not.
As far as what 'we know' the same thing would be said about most of the cases discussed here since rarely (unless it is in Florida) do we get to see any evidence or documents before a trial is held.
Just because we don't know what the evidence pertains certainly does not make the case weak nor the DA inept either.
There is no need for us to know prior to trial and that is why we don't know any of the evidence in this case nor do we know in most others either. Assuming the case is weak when we haven't even seen the evidence is ridiculous imo.
So imo, Tugela, is incorrect. It is foolish to assume they have no evidence based on the fact that this DA and law enforcement agency happens to be like most like them who do not divulge any of the evidence before trial.
If that was truly an indicator then just about every case discussed here before the trial would end up NG per the naysayers who don't know what the evidence is and we sure know that doesn't happen often even though the same things were opined in many of those cases as well.
And yes, I do take the words of the DA who is going to try this case. Do I think he is dumb? Nope. Do I think he is an honest man? Yep. Do I believe him when he tells his citizens that the evidence is voluminous? Yep. Do I think he wants to commit political suicide by bringing a weak case that will be his most high profile one of his career? Absolutely not.
I don't have to assume what the DA has stated. Those are verified words and I am sure he stands behind his words. Thinking the case is weak based solely on 'what we don't know' is a weak assumption.
He will not go at your pace. He is a man of his own design and when the time is right he will do it then. He knows he has a certain amount of time to decided if he is going to seek death or not. It shows he is calm and methodical as he should be. I really don't care how long it takes him and I don't have to know the evidence he says he has either.
I have patiently waited for many trials to commence so at that time the evidence could be entered properly on the witness stand in a court of law as it should be. I also will not be shocked when it is mind blowing to realize just how much evidence they have against these two although I am sure some will be. There always seems to be a few that really think a DA will bring a case based on absolutely no evidence other just the words of criminals.
IMO
