Re: Why didn't Kent Wills Appeal more logical items?

In article
<94bf2839-fdf0-42a0-8deb-07e6bef77aa4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Greegor  <Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>tjab > And yet notwithstanding the fact that it
>tjab > doesn't make sense to you, Kent Bradley
>tjab > Wills was convicted by a jury of his peers.
>tjab > Doesn't it just make you weep?
>
>1. Property was all in kid's posession (questionable)
>2. Ring missing from inside car (questionable)
>3. Kent's explanation of why he was in the area (mystery)
>Why weren't these arguments used in the appeal to the Iowa Supreme
>Court?

These are questions of fact, not questions of law.

>Why appeal using the lame argument that he had inadequate
>representation because the attorney would not
>argue that an attached garage is not part of a residence?

A lame argument from Kent - who woulda thunk it?

>This would not have been half as much fun if Kent
>had just acknowledged this Felony record.
>Kent's raging denial and the enlisted stooges make it much more fun!