2011.06.16 TRIAL Day Twenty (Morning Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paternity test on LA as to being the father. ICA is unbelievable!!!! this is going to look very bad to the jurors..........
 
"I have two very good faith reasons for asking that question," JB.

I don't think it works like that. It's just good faith--not, really good faith, or sort of good faith. JB's manner of speaking really grates on me.
 
JB's body language, drumming fingers, all entirely inappropriate and disrespectful to the court. What a piece of work. And ICA ought to be ashamed of herself -- she knows LA couldn't have been the father of her child. Nonsense, say I.

:cow:
 
Dear Lord, please help me today! Keep my mouth shut, my fingers crossed and my patience in tact.

This is like pulling teeth! :furious: JB is killing me asking witnesses these questions.....he doesn't even know what's he's asking. :banghead:
 
Okay SA does not want the fact that DNA testing was done on Caylee to see if Lee was father.

Baez arguing in order to ask question.
 
So JB is trying to discredit the FBI

It's in black and right - anyone catch that? lol
 
The question's reasonable, says JB. "It's black and right."
 
JB may be doing this on purpose. It worked in the OJ trial...the jury tuned out all the boring DNA evidence.

Bill Schaeffer....mind numbing...JB had a point...Lost it by droning on and on
 
If LA has been ruled out as the father then why even bring it up.
 
Oh wait...Ashton is objecting. sorry.

If it wouldn't cause a mistrial I think JA would jump over his desk and wring JB's neck. If I could reach through the computer screen I would. However there may be too many hands in my way. JMO
 
Baez jerking his head around while he looks at/listens to the judge comes across as so unbearably arrogant. He has NO courtroom decorum.

OMG--State asking if Lee Anthony was tested to see if he was Caylee's father? Did I hear that right?
 
If JB says they did the test and LA was determined not to be the father and 'that was the end of it'......why is it relevant????
 
Now I am upset. DH, who knows little to no background on this case, just told me that the testimony that foreign dna was found on the duct tape was enough to give him what he considers reasonable doubt.

I told him to wait for the explanation in state's cross. It would help him understand. He just shook his head. I am upset; if he is thinking this way ~ what may the jury be thinking?

No offense but if he's not even willing to listen to the State's cross for clarification, then he's not really reliable. I hope the actual jury is listening to both sides and ALL evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
2,256
Total visitors
2,332

Forum statistics

Threads
601,347
Messages
18,123,068
Members
231,024
Latest member
australianwebsleuth
Back
Top