With a reputation of a DA who will only bring slam dunk cases to trial, I'm not sure that says nearly as much as you are implying. The reputation was also that he would submit almost everything to the grand jury so as to not take any blowback for deciding not to submit certain cases. I hadn't heard that rep that you cite -- though I imagine the two statements aren't incompatible.
Mark Lazerus @MarkLazerus 52s53 seconds ago Sedita: "The question in my mind isn't when this case will go to a grand jury. Question in my mind is IF this case will go to a grand jury." As they say, a DA can indict a ham sandwich. So if he doesn't even submit it to them, that says a lot.
The stuff DiCaro is tweeting right now looks bad for Kane. Or she's being fed a story by a sympathetic source. Who knows at this point. Julie DiCaro @JulieDiCaro 13m13 minutes ago Source also says Kane approached accuser at bar (she didn't know who he was) and told her party was at his house. No party when she arrived.
I'm pretty sure the lawyer would be torn apart if he said the accuser was lying if he does in fact believe that. (yes I'm replying to my own posts) That would cost him his bar card. Goes back to what I said before. He just needed to withdraw and not say anything. He must have decided that would put his client in a negative light, so he put it on the mom.
Well, again, this case floors me. As a lawyer, I understand why he withdrew. But I think he said too much in doing so. I hope he parted with that family on decent terms. Regardless the bar could be looking at him for this.
Kind of odd there is a PC scheduled and we have no idea what will be said. She could be recanting. She could be lashing out. Or she could be announcing a settlement. So dramatic.