Search results

Excellent questions. I said I would be shocked if the State had an expert on the stand to determine this because I 100% believe it can't be done. IMO MOO

I know.

That's quite a click-baity headline. He wanted to be able to talk to his wife in private, not engage in "physical intimacy." Having never been held in maximum security prison (as a presumed innocent man) before, RA likely had no clue that was a no-no. IMO MOO

First question didn't get the desired response, but this leading question did. IMO MOO

Thank you. Leading questions are allowed in pre-trial hearings I take it?

Could someone please link to where RA said he was worried about his family seeing pics of his crimes? Thank you.

Have I ever said that?

I hope you're right.

I'd call a confession to two siblings evidence, but that's just me. IMO JMO

This article says she has died :(.

And she's a human, just like the rest of us, not infallible. I disagree with her decisions and MANY attorneys agree with this same point of view. This will be in appeals for years and years and years, costing Indiana taxpayers millions. JMO IMO MOO

Exactly my point. I disagree with the rulings here, and it's terrifying for the future of the judicial process in Indiana. In this case, only the "integrity" of the trial process is being "protected" for the State, NOT the defense. Just the opposite is happening....hands are being completely...

rsbm The jury should be given the chance to determine that. IMO MOO

Exactly. This is my point. The jury won't even have a chance to decide what they find credible about geofence data since the judge has decided it's not going to be allowed in. It's shocking. IMO MOO

I've always seen it as an LL Bean jacket. I don't see "BG's" jacket as being a Carhartt at all. IMO JMO

Which law? ETA: Her rulings are based on case law and her opinion of how they should be interpreted. It's subjective, and I don't think anyone would argue with that. IMO MOO

Wow. I don't remember ever seeing an initiative like that done before - releasing so many photos of witnesses!

I will be absolutely shocked if the State does that.

The fact that one fallible (like all of us) human being can decide that the third party evidence is false, based solely on opinion, and not let a jury of his peers consider it and decide it (like our justice system is supposed to be), makes me terrified. This is not only about this case and this...

Thank you for sharing that.