Hello,
This is my first post on websleuths. I have been actively watching the Adam Kaufman trial and am respectfully in quite a different view from many on here.
In my eyes, he is clearly guilty. I do not know how one can explain the deep deep bruising on the front, back, and sides of the neck. When combined with Mr. Kaufmans conflicting stories, I simply cannot see reasonable doubt.
I do realize that the police work was far from perfect. That being said, when one obtains top tier lawyers, their will always be a plethora of things to attack. Their are 1000 different elements to a crime scene, an investigation, reports, medical examiner testing, etc, etc, etc, and great lawyers will always hone in on and empasize the mistakes ( or things that appear that could be mistakes). I can assure you that no investigation is perfect from start to finish.
Although Mr. Millian is an excellent attorney, aren't people seeing alot of this as bluster, talking louder than the prosecution, and just picking on things that aren't even really there?? Or is it only I that is seeing this?? Although the defense team is clearly the more experienced/ dynamic attorneys, is this a reason to acquit a man that seems pretty clearly guilty? I dont know, just my 2 cents.
I would appreciate others thoughts on whether it appears Mr. Millian is grasping at straws that aren't there and is just trying to create a doubt by great lawyering?