Please note Mr. DePape's motivations outlined in his confession.
Link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-charged-assault-and-attempted-kidnapping-following-breaking-and-entering-pelosi-residence
More or less than 18 months?
(no message)
(no message)
is an important part of this case? Yes or No.
But, tell us how your "third party who opened the door" makes the damaging confession go away?
Read the complaint, Coley.
(no message)
The flip side is that 4th Amendment illegal searches and seizures or Miranda violations are perfectly memorialized for the defense attorney.
There is a reason why I posted above that the defense attorney’s focus would be the damaging confession. Not exactly helpful evidence to the accused when coupled with the broken glass (point of entry) + the items found in the accused book bag. Hence, defense counsel will search for any angle to challenge the lawfulness of the “confession” and seizure of any evidence.
Likely a very tall order for counsel to exclude evidence from being admitted at trial. Consequently, the defense and mitigation in this case will be mental illness, using the cavalier confession itself as proof of the mental illness.
I realize Mr. Pelosi’s victimization is all sport and entertainment for you, Not sure what you mean above by “You people tried and failed here. Just take the L, ole boy.” ???
(no message)
No third party - so I guess one of 3 ways? 1) through the broken patio door 2) through an unlocked front door or 3) the kicked down the front door. They should clarify for full transparency.
(no message)
David DePape forced his way into the home through a back entrance, Scott said. The police chief said Friday that officers arrived at the house and entered through the front door, which someone — they didn’t specify who — opened from the inside. They discovered DePape and Pelosi struggling in the entryway for a hammer, and after they instructed them to drop the weapon, Scott said, DePape took the hammer and “violently attacked” Pelosi.
The San Francisco Police Department and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins on Sunday clarified that there were just two people inside the home at the time, and that one of them had opened the door.
Google it. Stories keep changing
How does that help the defense?
Tell us your theory of the defense.
Tell us Perry Mason how the presence of “a third party” will trump the confession, broken glass/point of entry, and bookbag items?
If there's a trial, otherwise I am just going to rely on Occam's razor, an established crazy person was after Nancy.
That would mean there was a 3rd person in the house. Sure seems like someone's hiding something. Should Nancy and Paul be worried about an accomplice coming back to knee cap her? The perp is a freaking wacko - so who knows how much fact and fiction there is in his story.
He's not lobbying to reinstitute the draft, to shape up the youth of America. Keyboard warrior, with other peoples kids. Ooorah
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
A potential witness in the house to shed further light on what transpired?
Lack of addressing it implies something is being covered up? Especially when their first statement said a 3rd party opened the door.
It is not unimportant. How it matters at the end of the day depends on the full details of what happened.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.justice.gov/contact-us
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
think there would still be decent security. Very odd situation.
(no message)
(no message)