That it was a fallacy was indisputable. The defendant's attorney was able to refute each accusation and substantiate every argument: that the evidence had been planted as a red herring in order to imply that his client was guilty. As much as the district attorney attempted to infer that the man -now portraying himself as such an apologist- had tried to dupe the court, he was unable to dissuade the jury from declaring him innocent.
No comments:
Post a Comment