« Last post by jeanmarc8 on December 20, 2013, 07:04:44 PM »
I would hope the proposed book includes some reflections from Fulton-Martin-Crump on the outcome of the jury trial. Throughout the lead up to the trial, they seemed convinced of the absolute guilt of GZ and complete innocence of TM, which was not reflected in the jury’s findings.
F-M-C could blame the defense team for exceeding the appropriate bounds for legal representation to the point of being unprofessional, but their actions do not approach the legal actions that come to mind from another recent high profile, central Florida case. The defense chose not to take the wraps off the school history of TM or publicize the information on the cell phone found at the scene. F-M-C could blame the prosecution for being inept (possibly partly true for other reasons, since the prosecution pursued a case with no verifiable evidence or a witness saying that GZ threw the first punch). They could blame the prosecution for witnesses like the forensic pathologist whose testimony fizzled, or the speech experts that were ultimately not allowed to testify. But that might lead to questions about why F-M-C did not ensure the prosecution was fully engaged in the case. The prosecution cannot be blamed for the inability of W8/RJ “to connect all the dots” because she was identified by F-M-C. The prosecution seemed agreeable to being interwoven into the F-M-C agenda for the time leading up to the trail. The prosecution certainly did not seem hesitant to take actions on handling evidence that may have approached legal limits, or perhaps even a little beyond. F-M-C could blame the six women in the jury for being “racist”, but that begs the question about the prosecution’s jury selection skills and preparations.
Most likely the topic will not be included in the proposed book, suggesting that the insurance payout from the Homeowner’s Association was the desired endgame, and the rest was just lawyer stagecraft.