You know that the person who investigate the case is the one that the lawyer is disagreeing with in the first place, right? So when you say that the facts can easily be verified by an investigator and the investigator did, in fact, verify the facts, then what you are really saying is the lawyer is most likely selling a line of BS to try to protect his client.
Which is absolutely his job. But let's all understand exactly what he is doing here.
Of course that's what he's doing. But he is also pretty specific with detail.
What piece of information specifically are you saying the lawyer disagreed with the investigator about? The only major piece of information that jumps off as contradictory is the part about Miller's vehicle blocking the victim's. His lawyer disputes that, but that is something that should be easily verifiable through surveillance recording. To me, that's the most disturbing part about Miller's involvement.
Last edited: