it shows premeditation
The more testimony given, the more the testimony goes one way then another...the more witnesses called etc. NC's murder appears to be premeditation rather than heat of the moment.
it shows premeditation
I thought what the child said is inadmissible
The more testimony given, the more the testimony goes one way then another...the more witnesses called etc. NC's murder appears to be premeditation rather than heat of the moment.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the last ruling was he wasn't allowing it at that moment in time because it was considered hearsay. It wouldn't be hearsay if CM testifies what the child told her.
I don't think it's quite the same thing as the hearsay being allowed of what Nancy told others. That is being allowed in to show state of mind and not for the truth of the matter. The defense would want the statement by the child in for the truth of the matter and she can't be crossed by the prosecution so I don't see it being allowed in. MOO
If I was a juror, I'm not sure what my "takeaway" would have been from the Cisco guy. It was pretty confusing and hard to follow. It would be helpful if the prosecution could get straight to the point so we know what it is we're supposed to be discovering from this witness. But I'll admit I missed some of it. Can anyone summarize both sides, please? Was there any evidence presented?
I'm running way behind on this thread, I admit. I wasn't able to watch the afternoon's testimony. But from a novice in computer stand-point, IMHO, the testimony MAY have been only to ESTABLISH that BC had the ABILITY and KNOWLEDGE to ERASE the harddrive.
IF I was on the jury, that's what I took out of this witness testimony.
NOW, if he can erase a harddrive, can he erase a cell phone?
JMHO
fran
:tos: I believe that is out of bounds
Two quick questions: Can we put a board "pool" together on odds for closing statements? Or is that a TOS violation?
So, I am betting that the words "foundation of a murder" come up on the Prosecutions closing statement.
I also want to see if BC is going to get on the stand. THAT intrigues me. He'd have to be a complete IDIOT to do it.....but me spidey sense is tingling.
I have to agree with this. I would think this is more something a 4 year old would remember if asked about it, since it wouldn't had been something that she normally would do. But then again, we don't know if she was questioned about anything (we know she wasn't by police).
It'll be extremely interesting when CM takes the stand how the judge is going to deal with what the child told her.
who is CM and the Judge has already ruled that anything the child said is inadmissible...to be admissible the child would have to take the stand