Terror Defence Lawyer Won’t Say Americans Were Murdered on 9/11
If, for some strange underlying masochistic reason you are deliberately lookng for something which would make you want to lob bricks at the screen then TheEye can oblige. This is a nauseating television clip which perfectly illustrates why lawyers are up there with politicians when the man in the street wonders what to do with that roll of piano wire they were given for Christmas.
It is perfectly right and proper to affirm that everyone is entitled to a strong and robust defence; that the lawyer and graduate of the Air Force Academy is being paid to express an opinion and so on but to go on prime time US television and quibble over the number of dead on 9/11 and whether they were technically murdered or not….that either takes more front than Brighton or a hefty danger money payment and a promise of a Federal identity protection place for him and his family after the trial. As Bill O’Reilly points out, this chap is going to be very short of drinking buddies pretty soon.
One thing is clear though…if Scott Fernstermaker is a guide to the standard of defence lawyer for these terrorists then they are definitely going to fry.
Video via HumanEvents
If only we had media presenters willing to speak to scumbags like that, and also refer to terrorist scumbags like that…but we don’t of course.
To be fair, Scott Fernstermaker cannot be expected to call his clients terrorists or murderers, the interviewer might himself be thought to be in contempt of court for trying to get him to do so.
Very true, banned, and I alluded to that in the post – many a defendant, despite being as guilty as sin, has stood next to a lawyer who inwardly detests him and is obliged to argue his innocence despite being convinced of his guilt,
But I’m really saying, I guess, that the lawyer is obliged to take his 30 pieces of silver and say what needs to be said in court…but that duty doesn’t extend to television. What on earth was the guy doing on Fox? If it was OJs lawyer maybe, because there was also a fight for public opinion outside the court alongside the trial itself. But if this interview was an attempt at a “media strategy” then it blew itself to bits. The lawyer had no positive spin, no message, nothing to get across to the public which might convince them that he was anything else but a spiv, let alone that his clients might not be so bad after all.
I just can’t understand why this interview happened at all.
It wouldn’t have happened on CNN or any of the other liberal stations…which is why we need a channel in the UK with a few attack dogs on it. Not paid for by a telly tax of course, but on a commercial basis. I guarantee it would get a decent audience.
You’re wrong Banned.
He stated clearly a number of times he was not part of the defence team and would not be in court. He could have called them murderers and killers vociferously if he wanted but added there was a reasonable doubt for him as to their guilt.
The best place for freelance projects is freelancing sites. Freelancing sites are the best option for part time home based business and freelance jobs. There are many types of work available at freelancing sites
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com