Assuming a trial does come in this case, there is going to be a point where counsel for Mr. Cuadra and Mr. Kerekes will admit that their clients lied. In court, the need for that admission is going to be ineluctable.
Right now, the defense’s story has too many contradictions to hang together, and as we go along it’s not likely to get much more coherent. The only way around the inconsistencies is the eventual confession: You got us. We lied.
The question is: which bits were the lies?
Let’s assume that Joe Kerekes told the truth to the Times Leader in his jailhouse interview. That sets off a chain-reaction of problems (as previously discussed... twice.) In that instance, lawyers for him and for Mr. Cuadra will have to admit at trial that the pair lied to Mr. Lockhart right after the killing, saying “I guess my guy went overboard.” They’ll also have to confess that the two conversations on the San Diego beaches were complete hooey. Can you forgive us, Sean and Grant? We were just trying to sound cool.
The press interviews that Mr. Cuadra gave in early February—the ones where we said he had no connection to Kocis? Well, they’ll have to admit that those contained that teensy little fib, too. Media dudes, you got played. Sorry. My bad. Maybe talk to Joe next time.
But, hark, perhaps that’s the key. I mean, maybe Mr. Kerekes didn’t lie to that TL reporter, after all.
Of course, that’s no comfort to the media dudes who got played back in February: Standing on a guy’s stoop and looking at his freshly murder corpse... you sorta gotta feel a ‘connection’ there, eh? You news guys are used to being lied to, though, right?
And regardless of whether or not Mr. Kerekes told the truth in the jail cell, does the defense really want to go with the notion that these are two honest lads... and that they told the truth to Lockhart and Roy on the beach in La Jolla?
Or is it going to be: No, we lied when we lied but not when we didn’t, so you jurors just have to trust that we’re not lying when we say we didn’t kill that guy. And, right now, we're not lying. I swear. Really. Cuz... why would we lie?
That’s some defense.
-KM
Right now, the defense’s story has too many contradictions to hang together, and as we go along it’s not likely to get much more coherent. The only way around the inconsistencies is the eventual confession: You got us. We lied.
The question is: which bits were the lies?
Let’s assume that Joe Kerekes told the truth to the Times Leader in his jailhouse interview. That sets off a chain-reaction of problems (as previously discussed... twice.) In that instance, lawyers for him and for Mr. Cuadra will have to admit at trial that the pair lied to Mr. Lockhart right after the killing, saying “I guess my guy went overboard.” They’ll also have to confess that the two conversations on the San Diego beaches were complete hooey. Can you forgive us, Sean and Grant? We were just trying to sound cool.
The press interviews that Mr. Cuadra gave in early February—the ones where we said he had no connection to Kocis? Well, they’ll have to admit that those contained that teensy little fib, too. Media dudes, you got played. Sorry. My bad. Maybe talk to Joe next time.
But, hark, perhaps that’s the key. I mean, maybe Mr. Kerekes didn’t lie to that TL reporter, after all.
Of course, that’s no comfort to the media dudes who got played back in February: Standing on a guy’s stoop and looking at his freshly murder corpse... you sorta gotta feel a ‘connection’ there, eh? You news guys are used to being lied to, though, right?
And regardless of whether or not Mr. Kerekes told the truth in the jail cell, does the defense really want to go with the notion that these are two honest lads... and that they told the truth to Lockhart and Roy on the beach in La Jolla?
Or is it going to be: No, we lied when we lied but not when we didn’t, so you jurors just have to trust that we’re not lying when we say we didn’t kill that guy. And, right now, we're not lying. I swear. Really. Cuz... why would we lie?
That’s some defense.
-KM
