Well Andrew, to change the story against the US law enforcement is never a good idea. I am disappointed tgat you lack that piece of experience during your work.
(That is why they are still filtering out liars with a polygraph if highly suspicious). Cause then you are definitely idintified as a proven liar and that will allways come back against you in front of the jury. You could also study the case of Dieter Riechmann and come to the end that there is an innocent German guy rotten to death in US jail. Riechmann said he never will change his version even if a drug deal was the truth after finding out how corrupt the legal system was in his case.
Remember even Beever was suspicious about if Soering might admit something he didn't do. Together with all the points that law enforcement never had asked themselves in London which are obviously bullshit in Soering's confession you can just interpretate it now. Was he anxious about the attrocities he had done alone - being responsible also for them or did he realize that he will also take it for her. The Massie move was even dumb but brings a second person into the scene as not Elizabeth which got his hero role in DC (which she can not prove). Instead of getting the turning point and telling Gardner that Soering also wanted to kill Gardner, his Grandma and Howard Haysom (implicating that Soering is a serial killer) she said I did it myself.
Well that is a good plot.
So in the Soering case Neaton knew right from the beginning that the London confession might break Soering's neck after presented to the jury. He could also give legal advise to him like telling the truth that both had been at the scene if that was the truth (confession in front of the German state attourney, end of '86). But you could not judge a sentenced accessory before the fact, for first degree murder afterwards as for the same crime. So cui bono. After the trial Neaton said in an interview, that Soering kept is life. That means a lot!
I always appreciate the gossamer poetic nature of your ramblings, but I confess I find them rather hard to decipher. But I will pick out a point or two. First, showing yourself as a "proven liar" by changing your story is indeed a very foolish thing to do in any courtroom, whether American or German or Chinese. Second, Dieter Riechmann is quite guilty and the US criminal justice system worked just fine in his case. I've already discussed his case in Übermedien; his innocence claims, like Söring's, are just smokescreens. Of course Neaton realized Söring's confessions would likely guarantee a guilty verdict -- that's what confessions usually do, whether in the USA, China, or Germany.
Well Andrew, to change the story against the US law enforcement is never a good idea. I am disappointed tgat you lack that piece of experience during your work.
(That is why they are still filtering out liars with a polygraph if highly suspicious). Cause then you are definitely idintified as a proven liar and that will allways come back against you in front of the jury. You could also study the case of Dieter Riechmann and come to the end that there is an innocent German guy rotten to death in US jail. Riechmann said he never will change his version even if a drug deal was the truth after finding out how corrupt the legal system was in his case.
Remember even Beever was suspicious about if Soering might admit something he didn't do. Together with all the points that law enforcement never had asked themselves in London which are obviously bullshit in Soering's confession you can just interpretate it now. Was he anxious about the attrocities he had done alone - being responsible also for them or did he realize that he will also take it for her. The Massie move was even dumb but brings a second person into the scene as not Elizabeth which got his hero role in DC (which she can not prove). Instead of getting the turning point and telling Gardner that Soering also wanted to kill Gardner, his Grandma and Howard Haysom (implicating that Soering is a serial killer) she said I did it myself.
Well that is a good plot.
So in the Soering case Neaton knew right from the beginning that the London confession might break Soering's neck after presented to the jury. He could also give legal advise to him like telling the truth that both had been at the scene if that was the truth (confession in front of the German state attourney, end of '86). But you could not judge a sentenced accessory before the fact, for first degree murder afterwards as for the same crime. So cui bono. After the trial Neaton said in an interview, that Soering kept is life. That means a lot!
I always appreciate the gossamer poetic nature of your ramblings, but I confess I find them rather hard to decipher. But I will pick out a point or two. First, showing yourself as a "proven liar" by changing your story is indeed a very foolish thing to do in any courtroom, whether American or German or Chinese. Second, Dieter Riechmann is quite guilty and the US criminal justice system worked just fine in his case. I've already discussed his case in Übermedien; his innocence claims, like Söring's, are just smokescreens. Of course Neaton realized Söring's confessions would likely guarantee a guilty verdict -- that's what confessions usually do, whether in the USA, China, or Germany.