I loved Mummert's reaction to the question about CWW's testimony against MS. He said something to the effect that he'd let the reporters determine how much weight to give the word of a convicted felon. But his answer seemed too preposterous even to him--he broke into what could serve as the perfect illustration of a "s@%$-eating grin."
Prosecuting attorney did a great job. He waited until Mummert asked Mark when he was last in Missouri (to attend Wright's wedding) to get into the Wright-Sievers connection, then ended up entering into evidence Wright's sworn testimony against Sievers. Gotcha! Then Mummert stepped in it again by asking the lead detective if it wasn't true that Wright was never paid for the murder. Answer: "That is incorrect." Turns out he was paid, and said in a sworn statement that he used the money from Mark's check to cover the expenses of traveling to Florida to commit the murder. I thought attorneys were never supposed to ask questions to which they don't know the answer? Mummert seems out of his league in this case.
Also funny was that Mark's female tenant in his Missouri condo was, at the time the condo was searched, "in custody."
