This is JMO, but I think the one good thing about BW's request for reasonable bond is that it likely lays out at least some of the arguments that his defense attorneys might try to use at trial, so I see that as a potential heads-up for the prosecution of some of what might be expected. JMO in terms of the bond request, I think the defense is grasping at straws, but are trying to make their argument for bond appear to be "compelling", when it is not. Perhaps it is an attempt to see what they can get away with?
In looking at the motion for reasonable bond, the arguments are way out there, IMO.
1. They refer to BW as the father-in-law of HR. That is not an accurate description of that relationship. I think this is designed to make it appear that there was a kinship relationship, IMO. when in reality, BW is the father of HR's former boyfriend and he is the grandfather of the child shared by HR and JW. IMO, if things were so full of love at the W house, HR would have stayed with them, and the W's came as a package deal.
2. They are trying to make what occurred with RN a "positive"
that should go to the favor of BW.
HUH?
3. In terms of the great friendship that supposedly existed between BW and CR, Sr., we now know there was indeed an altercation between BW and CR Sr., not long before the murders. How many "good" friends beat the hell out of one another and then shake hands and all is good? Little kids may do this, but grown men? Personally, I've never seen that happen with grown men remaining friends after even a verbal argument.
4. IMO, they are trying to cornfuddle the discovery that has been provided to them to try to make it appear that the prosecution does not have their act together or is withholding info because their case is "weak". JMO, this is not a weak case. You don't get that many grand jury indictments on a weak case. In addition, the look of exasperation on AC's face when the discovery files come up is all I need to know about that.
5. It's interesting how they don't somehow try to use the electronic spying that occurred in their argument for bond! No mention of that. We know there is evidence of spying and BW was indicted for participating in that. I guess we are supposed to assume that it is completely normal for one set of good friends to electronically spy and monitor the activities of another set of good friends? And also assume that when it's done, it's done without any intention of malice? When there are hundreds of communications dealing with child custody, and forged custody documents that deal with custody after the death of a parent?
6. On the argument that no one saw BW commit murder. No one, except for three babies who were too young to talk. Is the fact that no one who could talk was a witness to the unmitigated horror that occurred that night to be considered a big deal? How many cases of premeditated murder come with a witness who is able to identify the person or persons who did it? Not many, because it is planned that way to escape detection.
7. The part that states BW would be a caretaker on his mother's farm. That would make him appear to be a productive member of society while out on bond, but I seem to remember that FW is not allowed to communicate with any family members who have been accused. How is that supposed to work?
I'm sure I haven't addressed all of it, but if this is where they are coming from with respect to requesting reasonable bond, it tells me they don't have much to work with, and IMO, they are trying to see what they can get away with.
All JMO
