Tuesday, July 07, 2009

One or two trials?

From the NHR:

Prosecutors and relatives of the victims of a deadly home invasion in Cheshire two years ago are seeking one trial for the two men charged with the crime, saying the sole survivor should be spared the ordeal of two trials.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

Their only defense is for each to accuse the other of having actually killed the three women.

If this will be their defense, then they should be tried together so each can respond to the other and to the evidence altogether.

Anonymous said...

People need to remember that Dr. Petit is a victim of this brutal crime and should not be put through emotional stress of 2 trials.
These 2 were caught red-handed in the stolen vehicle fleeing a home where 3 people were killed and 1 was brutally beaten.
What defense could they have?
this system is so ridiculous...2 1/2 years to allow the court appointed (actually low class lawyers who fought to get this high profile case)attornies to prepare a case that seems open and shut. We continue to pay their salaries.
Tell McDonald and Lalor that we don't need to abolish the death penaly, we need to fix the system and take care of the victims. Allow them to see justice in a swift manner like they were promised.

Anonymous said...

They committed the crimes together, they were caught together, they should be tried together.

But the ACLU crowd (the Estys, Nardellos, and other thug-huggers) would object to anything that 'prejudices' defendants in such cases, preferring to obfuscate the clear evidence with such tactics as separate trials.

Anonymous said...

These people have no concern for the victims, they pamper the accused.
May they never have to walk in Dr. Petit's shoes.

Anonymous said...

There should be one trial, but I have to say something is seriously wrong with our system when it's taking this long to bring these two animals to trial.

Anonymous said...

if it was up to Dr

Bill said...

Make it easy, line them up, one bullet, two solutions at the same time.