Caylee Advocate
On Time Out
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,713
- Reaction score
- 15,100
Your quote:
I think they will try to say G4 did not have intent to kill which is needed for complicity. I do think he will be found guilty of complicity which is what the state has said they will try him under.
Yes the defense is saying George had no intent to kill, quote from hearing:
"The prosecution then said Jake did implicate George as being involved in the planning and execution of the shootings on the night in April 2016.
Defense admits the prosecution has George as being complicit in all the charges but George had no intent towards any of it."
Confusing. How can you be complicit without the intent to be complicit?
If he had no intent to kill he would have stopped them from killing, he wouldn't have let them plan it etc...
I don't get the no intent defense. He did what he did. It's his actions that matter.
If he only went along to protect Jake, I guess that might imply he would kill or at least shoot his Dad. Why not try to stop it before it got to that point. I keep wanting to know why it was said (sorry no link) that this all had to happen in this time frame. Does anyone recall this? IIRC, they needed it to happen before such and such a date. GRRR I hate when articles are scrubbed.