To be fair, I making some assumptions and drawing some inferences. If my assumptions are wrong then my conclusion is probably not justified. But, here it is in a nutshell. 1. My understanding is that Cummings said "Nope not gonna go there" at one or more points in time in response to the theory that GK was not the perp, but rather the kid that looked like GK was. 2. My understanding is that Cummings was representing family members (sibling(s)?) of that other kid on unrelated matters. 3. While it may have seemed to be reasonable strategy to focus the defense on "didn't happen" rather than "you got the wrong guy," I wonder if a different lawyer would have spent more time on the latter theory. I get that hindsight is 20/20 here, I am likely influenced by the fact that we now know that GK wasn't there, and I may be dismissing how late in the game the other kid theory came up. 4. In my opinion, because the representation of the siblings could have influenced the consideration of the alternate perp theory, Cummings should have withdrawn. To be sure, Cummings would not be found to have behaved unethically by the bar, and it would never really rise to the high standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. Cummings put on a the best defense she could. But for the above reasons, I think that she should have withdrawn and let a different lawyer decided how to treat the alternative perp theory.