FYI--not all facts matter. Not all inconsistencies matter.
Could be the 25 inconsistent statements were immaterial to the case in terms of impacting the final outcome. With 50 years of expertise, one would imagine the attorneys can distinguish between that which matters and that which does not.
Could be they missed the details. Two different officers, two different police reports, two different police departments compounds the liklihood of missing something.
Could be they colluded and conspired to decive the court and the defendant--but you'd need a LOT more than what you posted here even to begin making that assertion.
READ THIS BEFORE CALLING OR EMAILING ME: I am licensed to practice before the state and federal courts in Virginia. We have not established an attorney-client relationship unless we have a signed representation agreement and you have paid me. I am providing educational instruction only--not legal advice. You should speak with an attorney to whom you have provided all the facts, before you take steps that may impact your legal rights. I am not obligated to answer subsequent emails or phone calls unless you have hired me. I wish you the best of luck with your situation.
I agree with the previous attorney. In addition, and more importantly, the attorneys could have allowed in statements and exhibits because it may be because of their legal strategy. For there to be collusion or insinuate the same, you must have more evidence.
The information is for general information purposes only. Nothing from this comment should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship or a prospective attorney relationship.
Inconsistencies of some sort are to be expected when different people describe a situation and jurors know and invariably understand and recognize this. Emphasising every little inconsistency is likely to convince a jury that you have no real ammunition and are desperately trying to make something out of nothing. I am not familiar with the details of the case that you describe, but my initial impression is that the lawyers probably handled the matter in the best way possible, and that course you suggest might have been very unwise. I do not see any indication of impropriety based on your recitation.