This trial was only to settle the matter of sentencing. Residual doubt, I'm sure, will be presented at his next appeal. Although, with living witnesses from the Moon Smoke Shop to identify the shooters, I doubt his so called alibi evidence will stand up any better than it has in the past.
How can the Nordstrom family sleep at night knowing that BOTH of their sons were involved in this kind of sheer evil?
As for the comment that A.J. Flick works for the defense team, I did say "or so I was told". And she certainly was very chummy with all of them in court. As for her bias, she didn't even attempt to speak to any of the victims' family members to get a balanced viewpoint for this article.
Scott Nordstrom's convictions have held up throughout his appeals process. This article is extremely one-sided. The author works for the defense team as an investigator, or so I've been told. David Nordstrom got a sweet deal instead of the punishment he should have received. That doesn't mean that Scott's sentences aren't valid. This jury has heard only the State's side of things because Nordstrom's team has refused to offer mitigation or to cross examine one single witness. It would appear that Nordstrom's last line of defense is going to be "inadequate council". As for the picture, isn't that the fault of the publication for using the wrong picture? This article is nothing but shoddy, tabloid journalism.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation