I really don't understand how it's possible for them to try to explain her behavior with a witness who has never once examined or talked to the defendent. ICA's sudden waterworks just make me :maddening:.
They can't do this, right? "Assume a hypothetical that is based completely around our...
I think the jury is still there could be wrong. So sorry, I should have been more clear. The defense is trying to offer her as an "expert", the prosecution is objecting. Barnes and Noble has yet to weigh in. :crazy:
Occam's Razor would slice through this entire defense like it's Kleenex, IMO. This whole convoluted web is exhausting and absolutely defies any logic.
Brandon say RK said he "urinated in a ditch, and found the remains of the little girl." Ok. We know?
My hands are numb from sitting on them. But my boyfriend who prides himself on his lack of bias (and is about 3 hours behind on trial watching) just messaged me "George said he didn't think then that Casey did it, past tense!". He's my mock juror.
Defense calls Brandon Sparks, now I thought Kronks "prior bad acts" aren't admissable, so the DT really is gonna call him, ask him if RK said that "he would find that baby" or whatever, and then send him on his merry way. :cow:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.