Hold it. Are you saying that a person charged with a crime actually has a say in their own defense!
Well probably that too!
I think his relationships with both women were dominated by the fact that he chafed under what he perceived as control but he also liked the attention he got, and he was too passive-aggressive to ever address his issues like an adult. With his mom, he liked being her golden boy but hated being her little boy, so he'd never tell her he was driving her crazy, though he is more than happy for someone else to keep her at bay. Likewise, with SW, I think he liked being gushed over on social media and having her wait on him and do all the other stuff she did, but he resented that the marriage was a two-way street and came with responsibilities on his end. But he would never suck that up or have a grown-up conversation with his wife about his feelings. Just like he used SW to fight his own battles with his mom, he used his mom to fight his battles with SW.
Exactly!
Please provide a link for the rules/statutes that state a public defense attorney is in complete control of the communications of their client. Everything we have read and seen, including by our own verified attorneys, suggests otherwise. It would be a clear violation of his Constitutional rights. I understand that you want to make this point, but I think you have to back it up to assert it as fact. IMO
Oh my gitana! I don’t think my reply was even supposed to be in response to your post! I’m sorry! I’m always so behind I can’t even find it now. I feel exactly the same as most everyone about the MRS people! I’ll try to be more observant when I reply - most of the time I don’t since I’m usually many hours and sometimes days behind the current discussions.
Quoting myself to add I think he liked someone else making his decisions. He had no responsibility but could still complain about what the other person decided, so he is never at fault for anything that goes wrong. I have to deal with people like that at work, and it is maddening. I think he played his mother and his wife off against each other that way as well. To someone's face, he's fine with them telling him to do something, but he then turns around to another person and complains about being controlled.
Oh boy!!! I could be way off here and I hope I am, but the Watts recently filed a motion stating they are victims. Was this because they were not heard at his plea hearing? It clearly states that victims have the right to be heard at any court proceeding accepting a plea.
24-4.1-302.5 - Rights affording to the victim
d) The right to be heard at any court proceeding:
(I) Involving the defendant's bond as specified in section 24-4.1-302(2)(c);
(II) At which the court accepts a plea of nolo contendere;
(III) At which the court accepts a negotiated plea agreement;
https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/4923-colorado
Why would they expect to be heard in the plea agreement? SW's family was not heard.
I think they would have filed regardless. These people apparently like to be heard, and they wouldn’t miss an opportunity like this.
Me thinks Cindy recalled some important information since her interviews....
It is exactly the way someone w/NPD would see it. They are incapable of seeing how anything effects anyone other than themselves, as evidenced by talking about the impact on them when impact on other people is far more serious.
No.
Yes, and the AP's interview was somewhat enlightening. MOO
Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I am sorry! The phrasing made it seem like you were wondering if they were doing this because they weren't heard at the last hearing. But neither side was heard during that hearing. I realize in retrospect now that maybe that hearing earlier this month isn't what you would call a plea hearing since it seemed more like declaring the intention to plea rather than actual pleading. I guess I'm just confused why they would expect to be heard in court before now.
