Anonymous wrote:

when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

They may love their troubled brother anyway and are doing their version of standing by his side. I mean if they think he's insane--and truly believe that--I don't think they have an obligation to fund a defense other than submitting an insanity defense. And if Nick himself is still at the point where he's unwilling to do this and has not been judged competent or incompetent to stand trial, then truly loving him might mean "We know he needs to be locked up and we're not funding any trial that migh let him go free."

He brutally slaughtered their parents. People cut their family off for good for far less.

when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

They may love their troubled brother anyway and are doing their version of standing by his side. I mean if they think he's insane--and truly believe that--I don't think they have an obligation to fund a defense other than submitting an insanity defense. And if Nick himself is still at the point where he's unwilling to do this and has not been judged competent or incompetent to stand trial, then truly loving him might mean "We know he needs to be locked up and we're not funding any trial that migh let him go free."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick being incarcerated would probably be a comfort to his siblings: they would know where he is.

And he won't be able to hurt them or anyone else.

That's what we thought about the Menendez brothers and then the claims of parental sexual abuse emerged. Parents were brutally slain and can't defend themselves. We also have a President loves to pardon criminals who hurt his detractors.

Anonymous wrote:Nick being incarcerated would probably be a comfort to his siblings: they would know where he is.

And he won't be able to hurt them or anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:Nick being incarcerated would probably be a comfort to his siblings: they would know where he is.

Him not being locked up isn't really a possibility, it's basically whether he goes to prison or a secure mental health facility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d assume “Mr Green” didn’t show up. The lawyer prob thought he could milk the nine-figure estate for a few million bucks. Once he realized the estate wasn’t going to pay…adios.

This!

Yep. I said this in the old thread when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

Stand by him?

Why? So he can knife them in their sleep some night after a tiff at a holiday party or when they try to cut off his $$$ recreational drugs?

Yeah, hostage to an addict sounds like a great future.

This is literally what people said in the other thread:
"No one asks for or wants to have severe mental illness related to brain chemistry and neurological wiring. Go visit group homes with kids and adults with the severest manifestations of low cognitive functioning, autism, physical abnomalities, and mental illness. Nick was displaying disturbing behaviors as a very young child, and I'm sure his siblings want him to remain in a restricted environment, prison or otherwise, but will provide needed help and support. It's a heartbreaking situation."

This is clearly said by a parent who enables and coddles their own messed up son. I said the siblings wouldn't stand by him and it looks like they aren't going to help fund his defense if money is the issue.

DP. As a SN parent comparing this to severe autism and intellectual disability is crazy.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d assume “Mr Green” didn’t show up. The lawyer prob thought he could milk the nine-figure estate for a few million bucks. Once he realized the estate wasn’t going to pay…adios.

This!

Yep. I said this in the old thread when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

Stand by him?

Why? So he can knife them in their sleep some night after a tiff at a holiday party or when they try to cut off his $$$ recreational drugs?

Yeah, hostage to an addict sounds like a great future.

This is literally what people said in the other thread:
"No one asks for or wants to have severe mental illness related to brain chemistry and neurological wiring. Go visit group homes with kids and adults with the severest manifestations of low cognitive functioning, autism, physical abnomalities, and mental illness. Nick was displaying disturbing behaviors as a very young child, and I'm sure his siblings want him to remain in a restricted environment, prison or otherwise, but will provide needed help and support. It's a heartbreaking situation."

This is clearly said by a parent who enables and coddles their own messed up son. I said the siblings wouldn't stand by him and it looks like they aren't going to help fund his defense if money is the issue.

DP. As a SN parent comparing this to severe autism and intellectual disability is crazy.

Nick being incarcerated would probably be a comfort to his siblings: they would know where he is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d assume “Mr Green” didn’t show up. The lawyer prob thought he could milk the nine-figure estate for a few million bucks. Once he realized the estate wasn’t going to pay…adios.

This!

Yep. I said this in the old thread when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

Stand by him?

Why? So he can knife them in their sleep some night after a tiff at a holiday party or when they try to cut off his $$$ recreational drugs?

Yeah, hostage to an addict sounds like a great future.

This is literally what people said in the other thread:
"No one asks for or wants to have severe mental illness related to brain chemistry and neurological wiring. Go visit group homes with kids and adults with the severest manifestations of low cognitive functioning, autism, physical abnomalities, and mental illness. Nick was displaying disturbing behaviors as a very young child, and I'm sure his siblings want him to remain in a restricted environment, prison or otherwise, but will provide needed help and support. It's a heartbreaking situation."

This is clearly said by a parent who enables and coddles their own messed up son. I said the siblings wouldn't stand by him and it looks like they aren't going to help fund his defense if money is the issue.

Soulless ghouls like you scare me more than people addicted to drugs. People addicted to drugs can be rehabilitated. You choose to be evil.

Give it up. The issue is where the siblings stand now, and it's not by their poor brother's side.

Their poor brother? He killed their parents, whose lives were made fearful and miserable by him. They owe him nothing. Let the religious who minister to the imprisoned deal with him. He's not their problem anymore.

He probably has his own income from a trust fund or investments the parents did for him and gave him. That isn't uncommon among the rich. it probably isn't enough to pay the lawyer and the siblings as others have said need to protect themselves. If he gets out too soon he could kill them and any future offspring they have. That said, I wonder if there will be litigation against the mental health program he started that was something like 70,000 a month. If he was started on a new medication and they let the expensive psychiatrist know he was struggling, then could he have been hospitalized privately until they found the right med mix?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pages of unfounded speculation and ignorant musings on the nature of criminal defense practice, when the answer is clear from the publicly known facts: He was unable to pay for a private defense attorney, and so one was appointed for him by the state. His prior attorney has an ethical obligation not to damage his case, despite his inability to pay, hence the statement that the client is not guilty. The public defenders are likely extremely capable lawyers. They handle the large majority of murder cases, and capital cases get special resources within the office.

Thank you! Public defender = not able to pay. That’s it, nothing to see here.

The PD calculation is based on his own income and not his family money. It's also possible they think the PD would be able to get him to take a plea better, sometimes PDs are really good at this.

The other thing to understand is the competency to stand trial motion is extremely common and literally any attorney can do it. This is absolutely textbook for this kind of case and there are plenty of available state experts to evaluate him.

There are actually two stages on mental health to consider here, whether he's competent to stand trial and then whether his mental health was such at the time of the crime that he basically wasn't culpable for his actions (this is a vast oversimplification). The first is considered well before the second.

Like most criminal cases chances are very very good this will never go to trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d assume “Mr Green” didn’t show up. The lawyer prob thought he could milk the nine-figure estate for a few million bucks. Once he realized the estate wasn’t going to pay…adios.

This!

Yep. I said this in the old thread when people tried to argue that his siblings still loved their troubled brother anyway and would stand by him. Doesn't look like it.

Stand by him?

Why? So he can knife them in their sleep some night after a tiff at a holiday party or when they try to cut off his $$$ recreational drugs?

Yeah, hostage to an addict sounds like a great future.

This is literally what people said in the other thread:
"No one asks for or wants to have severe mental illness related to brain chemistry and neurological wiring. Go visit group homes with kids and adults with the severest manifestations of low cognitive functioning, autism, physical abnomalities, and mental illness. Nick was displaying disturbing behaviors as a very young child, and I'm sure his siblings want him to remain in a restricted environment, prison or otherwise, but will provide needed help and support. It's a heartbreaking situation."

This is clearly said by a parent who enables and coddles their own messed up son. I said the siblings wouldn't stand by him and it looks like they aren't going to help fund his defense if money is the issue.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Pages of unfounded speculation and ignorant musings on the nature of criminal defense practice, when the answer is clear from the publicly known facts: He was unable to pay for a private defense attorney, and so one was appointed for him by the state. His prior attorney has an ethical obligation not to damage his case, despite his inability to pay, hence the statement that the client is not guilty. The public defenders are likely extremely capable lawyers. They handle the large majority of murder cases, and capital cases get special resources within the office.

Thank you! Public defender = not able to pay. That’s it, nothing to see here.

Anonymous wrote:I read another article where the lawyer said he’s 100% not guilty. So, not sure why he’d quit or why he’d make such a statement. I think it was on Yahoo.

I don’t know about the Yahoo article

But when there’s a plea called not guilty by reason of insanity … and in this case, it seems it fits … you can be both telling the truth and want to withdraw from the defense.

But there’s no truly serious evidence other than that he did kill his mother and father

As a high level attorney in the area, you still don’t want to be the legal face of the defense in this situation

Nick Reiner will never be acquitted

He murdered his parents. He’s mentally ill. There’s a well documented history of his being mentally lll.

The lawyer did his duty as a private lawyer taking the retainer and investigating, and then withdrawing when he felt he couldn’t do the job.

The defense belongs to a public defender, who will lose, everyone knows that, but that younger public defender will get his name on the map.

I guess.

Anonymous wrote:There's already a thread on this subject.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1305729.page

You can't start a new thread with every new piece of information.

That thread is locked, hon.