Respectfully we don't know anything the Turpins will bring as a defense.
"The chains are bad enough, but we also have to take that in context of everything else we've heard. If this were simply a story of parents being arrested for keeping a child in chains, it might be possible (although still not likely) that we were dealing with uneducated, desperate, possibly borderline intellectually disabled people who simply could not think of a better way of dealing with a violent, troubled child who posed a danger to himself and others."
How do you or anyone if us know as you stated as fact that "not close to the story here" Respectfully do you know something we don't know?
And again discovery just started and we know nothing of anything on evidence. Defense filed a Motion on 18, I will find link. Only thing I am aware of.
But beyond a reasonable doubt will be what DA will prove on any charges that make to actual trial before one of possibly 2 juries. Unknown if the will be severed or not.
This is going to be my last post responding to you on this. As many of us have said, we are forming conclusions based on the totality of information that has so far come out. Obviously, the Turpins, like every other defendant, will have an opportunity to present a defense and go through a full trial, if they so choose. However, in light of numerous statements on the part of legal and medical authorities suggesting that these children suffered pervasive abuse in multiple ways (restraint, starvation, educational deprivation, neglect), I don't feel any need to grasp at straws as to why all or any of this might be justifiable.
I never claimed to know anything anyone else doesn't. I offered a hypothetical other type of case -- in which parents were arrested after chaining a child up -- and said, completely accurately, that that "isn't close to the story here," because it isn't. This is a case in which the parents are accused of multiple forms of pervasive abuse. So, even on the basis of the nature of the accusation, the kind of justification or mitigation that might apply in one case is not going to apply here, because granting the utmost benefit of the doubt on the logic of chaining up a child (and that phrase itself boggles my mind), that would not explain away the other charges, many of which have been backed up by numerous statements from professionals. So yes, I can confidently state as fact that the two scenarios I have described are different.
Again, I'm done.