Would love to know your take on this morning's events. While this opinion may not be popular, IMO, Mr. Pattis is doing a good job. We don't have all of the facts, which makes presumption of innocence even more important--in court at least, on WS we are able to give our opinions. State needs to show more of its hand to keep FD behind bars, IMO. Albeit unfortunately IMO as well.
I think he's masterful. But the state does not need to show more of its hand. Not now. The high bail for this charge shows the seriousness of the circumstances and the strength of the evidence.
It's very easy to fall for his spin. He's good. But while we may not know ALL the facts, those we do know are powerful and compelling and IMO substantial evidence that he committed homicide against Jennifer. And it will be super easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO, that he tampered with evidence and hindered prosecution.
Make no mistake, the attorney isn't defending against those charges as much as he is defending against what will surely become a homicide case.
The facts we know must be taken as a whole. Too many times in these cases I see people twist and turn in order to excuse each fact and find a way to make each fact explainable other than due to homicide.
But we can't look at each fact separately. Each fact isn't in a vacuum. We have to look at them together and when we do, I believe the facts provide a powerful circumstantial homicide case:
1. The parties were engaged in a highly contentious divorce.
2. Jennifer had attempted to get a temporary restraining order against FD stating she was afraid of him, he had threatened her and she believed he would try to kill her.
3. FD appeared controlling and angry according to Jennifer, during the marriage. Her kids expressed fear of him.
4. One of the harshest custody orders available was issued against him, calling for only supervised visitation, no overnights, preventing him from speaking Greek to his kids or speaking privately with them. His every move had to be monitored by a progressional. This would be particular galling to a man with a large ego, sense of entitlement and controlling nature. It also shows the strength of the evidence about his nature and his danger to the kids.
5. A hearing was coming up in which FD would have to disclose financial information, which court orders would be based on.
6. Before the hearing was to occur, Jennifer disappeared.
7. Blood evidence, including blood spatter was found in her home.
8. FD was spotted on camera, the day Jennifer disappeared, dumping bags into trash cans.
9. Those bags were retrieved and found to contain blood that belongs to Jennifer.
10. Now we find his DNA was found mixed with Jennifer's blood on a faucet inside Jennifer's house, even though he was not inside the actual house (and was merely outside in the backyard for a visit)
Oh I'm sure someone could come up with excuses or each of those facts or reasons why each one individually doesn't amount to murder.
But they won't be examined individually at trial. They'll be looked at as part of a whole picture.
And that picture is of a controlling man whose wife feared him and felt he was going to kill her, a man slowly losing control of his kids and his finances.
His attorney can bluster all he wants and make beautiful speeches about due process and prejudging and attempt to convince people his client is innocent. But the reality is summed up by what the prosecutor stated at the hearing today, which was something to the effect of: "Counsel said a lot of things but he failed to state one important thing and it's easy to see why- his client was seen dumping bags with Jennifer blood on them, the day she disappeared."
No innocent person has that many coincidences in their lives.
