Search results

That was in 2008. We're now in 2011 and phones have come a VERY long way in the last three years. I will be shocked if that is not brought up in closing by the state.

Yes, but I wouldn't make fun of someone. Mine is IP provider. I don't make fun of people for that. Dang! I think I just used the wrong example. (Feel free to make fun of me.)

The prosecutor is fighting for one side only. Noone expects him to be neutral. A witness on the other hand should not be steering his evidence to benefit one side or the other. The evidence should just be what it is.

He lost me when he made fun of the detective for using the term "puck" instead of "puk" or what would be the actual acronym "puc".

Ouch! You really think it's "all about the money"? Do you have a daughter?

I disagree. I think the witnesses are not that strong in their convictions. The defense tried to do the same thing with the prosecution witnesses and it didn't work. If a witness is truthful and convinced of the evidence being presented, they will not be "tripped up". MOO

Agreed. If the paralegals are reading here, I hope they pass along and I hope AF is prepared to do the cross tomorrow. This is not a make-or-break witness. He should not be treated as an expert witness.

Usually the one who has been objecting during the direct is the one who does the cross. That's what I meant. Although I don't know that I have ever heard AF object to anything.

The way his story came across, he and Brad feel apart as friends. When Nancy was missing, he reached out to Brad because he felt bad for him. Brad turned to him for a place to stay. To me I wondered why Brad didn't have any friends that were closer to him that he could turn to. It's not...

BZ has been the one objecting during direct.

Yes! And it was exactly the same when he was doing the direct of the state witnesses. He has not changed his style. He is who he is. He was different with JW. I will grant that.

I am nervous that BZ is the one who is going to cross SH. He just seems like such a gentle soul to me. I think he is very honest and sincere in his testimony. I know there is more to come but right now I don't know what they would cross him about except more to do with the "affair".

I couldn't disagree more. I thought BZ did a great job today. ETA: I was among the many that did not like his cross of JW. It made me squirm in my seat sitting in my family room. So I'm not just saying that as some "pro prosecution" poster.

Are you making reference to the prosecution? the defense? or both? :wink:

Except in the case of this witness, this is now what he does for a living. He is an expert court witness. (I think I got that right. Monday and Wednesday are my days with the one year old and three year old. My reports are lacking in many places. Especially around 11-1.)

The one thing that I expected him to testify to is the cell tower evidence. He was so animated in shaking his head during the testimony of the AT&T records guy that I thought sure that was going to be part of what he was going to bring to court. His testimony is that there are no cell towers...

Ahh. I thought you were referring to the testimony of Det. Dis. Without hearing from the detective, I have no idea what the context of that comment was.

Since most of us didn't get to hear that testimony it's hard to say. I took it to mean that they got all the information from the phone records.

I also apologize for asserting with such confidence that the phone in the photos was not Nancy's. (I do have an excuse and can provide a note if needed.) I saw the part where the witness was saying that it was a test phone in the photos. I missed the part where it was cleared up in redirect...

I'm clueless there as well. My phone does not have a SIM card. I know what they do but have no idea what happens when you start swapping them from one phone to another. All I know is that today's witness seemed to have added more questions than answered. I don't think he lived up to the...