Blanck and Harris, through their defense counsel, presented a strategic defense primarily aimed at disclaiming knowledge of the perilous conditions and even disputing the presence of locked doors.
Core Pillars of the Defense
Their defense counsel, Max Steuer, built a robust argument around two main points to counter the accusations leveled against the owners:
- Claim of No Knowledge: A fundamental aspect of their defense was the assertion that Blanck and Harris had no knowledge that any doors were locked. This was intended to distance the owners from direct responsibility for the hazardous conditions that contributed to the tragedy.
- Disputing Locked Doors: Beyond merely denying awareness, the defense went further by actively challenging the prosecution's claim that the doors were, in fact, locked at the time of the incident. This tactic aimed to undermine a crucial piece of evidence against them.
Tactical Execution
To reinforce their claims and create doubt, the defense team:
- Leveraged Witnesses: They meticulously acquired and presented witnesses designed to cast doubt on whether the doors had been locked at all. These testimonies were crucial in attempting to refute the prosecution's narrative and provide an alternative account of the factory conditions.
This multi-faceted defense strategy sought to absolve Blanck and Harris of culpability by denying their awareness of the dangerous conditions and by attempting to discredit the very premise that the doors were locked, thus challenging the core elements of the case against them.
