DID JAMES ALEX FIELDS GET A POTENT DEFENSE?
Or was it a dog and pony show by a court appointed legal team?
Now that the verdict is in and Fields has been found guilty of First Degree Murder the question is was he adequately defended? The Jury didn’t get it wrong, they made a decision based on the evidence as presented. But were they truly given the full context of the day by the Defense? There are some interesting questions. For instance, since the trial was about intent, why didn’t the defense bring in its own experts to calculate how fast the car could have been going if he had truly floored it enough for people to hear the engine roar? Shouldn’t he have been doing at least forty or fifty based on the distance and cars ability? Why didn’t the defense show the video of the bat wielding protestor hitting the car and point out how difficult it would be to hit a car speeding 28 miles an hour at that point? Why didn’t they point out that the so called “peaceful” demonstrators managed to unleash a barrage of weapons to attack fields car within seconds of the collision? Why didn’t the closing argument ask the jury to look at the incident in two phases as it was clear that he should have feared for his life after the collision regardless of his intent, meaning that at that point any woundings were collateral damage as he tried to save his own skin. Why didn’t they point out that if the intent was to murder people why didn’t he swerve and take out dozens more? In order for it to be premeditated it seems he would have continued to push through the intersection causing as much damage as possible instead of coasting into another car and stopping, knowing he would be boxed in and perhaps even have an undriveable car. What murderer doesn’t have an escape plan in mind? Why did they ask the jury to put themselves in his shoes instead of their own shoes, and imagine if their “enemies” were surrounding them, and they were aware of two things; first that the enemies were armed and second that the Charlottesville police were going to offer no protections, just as they had neglected to do their job (from orders from the top) all day. Why didn’t they introduce the Heaphy report that showed that the city exacerbated the violence through their horrible miscalculations? Why didn’t they call city councilor Wes Bellamy and let him explain how his illegal vote to remove the statues disenfranchised people like Fields who still have Constitutional protections to voice their opinions? Why didn’t they make him say under oath what really happened that day and show his participation and rhetoric that amped up the violence? Why didn’t they point out that Fields had every legal right as an American to be there? Why didn’t the Lawyers ask the Judge to recuse himself when he told them that there could have been “no other intent” for the collision?
If he were a black man who drove down that road and the antifa thugs were instead Nazi’s would the commonwealth have charged him with murder? Doubtful.
Basically, it was just enough of a defense to say they tried, but at the end of the day it was about as exciting of a defense and effort as a bored housewife (or lawyer) gives in bed.
Hopefully there will be an appeal, where the outcome may stay the same, but at least the Constitution and the rights of the accused might be respected and not merely placated.
.
.
.
