Too, it seems highly unlikely that any will be taking the stand (I’m alone in thinking that narcissist Joe won’t be able to help himself).

Finally, with regard to the ‘legal impossibility’ defense, it could still be attempted murder (example: wannabe drug dealer sells what he says is illegal drug to cop but it’s not an illegal drug. Still convicted of attempted distribution despite ‘legal impossibility’). And that comes into play only if the jury believes the defendants correctly believed Robert was DEAD at the time of the stabbing. I don’t see the jury going out of their way to give such actions the ‘benefit of the doubt’.

Hard for me to see how one can make the judgment that a man is “probably” dead and NOT call 911 UNLESS they wanted him dead. Even if, as you say, the coroner was wrong and the stab wounds were NOT premortem, and he died before the stab wounds (not the evidence, but for argument’s sake), what jury is likely to believe that the stabbing showed anything other than a ‘cover up’, ‘conspiracy’, and ‘obstruction’? Besides being about as cold-blooded as one can imagine – especially considering Robert was a friend.

As to my identity and motivations, I am no one relevant to these discussions — just another faceless lawyer in a city lousy with them interested in this remarkable case. I know, or knew, none of the players, and am not an apologist for someone I have never met and would likely never have hung out with if I had — I’ve been married a decade, with 2 kids, and don’t go out much. I confess to a natural, generalized inclination towards the defense, not unlike what we require of jurors as they are seated before a criminal trial. But if the gov can add on and prove a homicide charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I’d be delighted to see Joe and Co. go away for life.