I mean, whether ’twere true or false, wouldn’t Trapp have to make noises like this right up to the moment he can’t anymore? (By that I don’t mean I necessarily disbelieve him — just that I’m supposing, from Camp Backstrom’s perspective, that question could only be handled one way at this (pre receipt-of-discovery) point.)

Of course, Sid Backstrom knows more than we do about what he did and said to whom, when, and what the strength of their case against him could be.

I read somewhere the last day or two (probably at Y’allP) some comments about his background — daddy a circuit judge down on the Coast; Bar member since, I think it was, 1999, etc., — that seemed possibly to suggest an over-exposure to liability/under-exposure to actual blameworthiness in U.S. v. Scruggs. Now those commenters’ readings were (like most everything still must be at this stage) speculative as hell, of course. But if they were trending toward the actual facts, there be mighty good reasons for Sid Backstrom to flip.

On the other hand, I haven’t forgotten Alyssa’s story early on, about how the least that’ll happen to anyone copping a felony plea is permanent disbarment. So maybe the only reasonable choice is fight-it-as-hard-as-you-can/safety-in-numbers.

But I declare, given the voluminous record of how Dickie Scruggs operates when there’s mere boatloads of money at stake, I just gotta wonder about the wisdom of trusting his partnership when every partner’s FREEDOM is.

So here’s my question of the mid-day: Short of pleading-and-flipping, but with a mind to distance his client from Dickie otherwise, does Team Backstrom have any other possible plays? And if so, what are they?