09-02-2011, 04:24 PM
I would think the Bolden Chicago case would be a more effective introduction to the Kennedy case because there's better evidence involved than the Tippit case. If you use the Tippit case as the source of the challenge they'll fuzz it up and say there's not enough solid evidence either way. The Bolden case is much more damning with much more obvious evidence.
In my mind they'll defeat any case based on Tippit. The Bolden case is a much better means because it would serve as good momentum to then head towards the Kennedy material after gaining a win. However I'm not sure if the Bolden case is more of a federal case, in which case would be like allowing the foxes to rule on their doings in the hen house.
Can Texas be trusted as a fair venue?
In my mind they'll defeat any case based on Tippit. The Bolden case is a much better means because it would serve as good momentum to then head towards the Kennedy material after gaining a win. However I'm not sure if the Bolden case is more of a federal case, in which case would be like allowing the foxes to rule on their doings in the hen house.
Can Texas be trusted as a fair venue?