Caylee Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,925
- Reaction score
- 16,160
Sadly, no.I found that shocking. I thought that was just something they did in the movies.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sadly, no.I found that shocking. I thought that was just something they did in the movies.
SC will surely testify at trial. The PCA does not have to include everything LE knows, every word that witnesses told them. We'll find out soon what her full testimony is, hopefully MOThe problem with this is that an affidavit, which is what a PCA is, should be a statement of absolute fact, to the best of one's knowledge.
![]()
affidavit
www.law.cornell.edu
LE saying "it could have been blood" isn't a fact. "Could have been yes" is not a fact. Misrepresenting facts in an affidavit is thus problematic, because that is the basis for the charges. Which led to RA being held in a prison for over a year. Nitpicking is kinda important when you are depriving someone of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.SC will surely testify at trial. The PCA does not have to include everything LE knows, every word that witnesses told them. We'll find out soon what her full testimony is, hopefully MO
Except the prosecution didn't use quotes. They paraphrased.I never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.
I do expect the prosecution to be truthful in their filings. Including a quote of a word never used by a witness in an affidavit is troublesome.
Respectfully, you are totally missing that an affidavit is supposed to be an absolute statement of truth...not a paraphrase.Except the prosecution didn't use quotes. They paraphrased.
The D-Team is the only ones who used quotation marks and that was only for the word "bloody". That does not mean or infer that the witness statement did not say "was muddy and covered in blood" for example. That's not troublesome to me as it is not a misleading paraphrase of what the witness said ... and as the Judge has already ruled when she denied the defence's motion IMHOIANADL opinion.
Respectfully, I don't see anything in the link that makes what I suggested above to be "non factual". "Covered in blood" can, in fact, also infer "bloody".Respectfully, you are totally missing that an affidavit is supposed to be an absolute statement of truth...not a paraphrase.
Again: affidavit
If she didn't say "bloody," and they insinuated she did, then that would be a misstatement of fact.Respectfully, I don't see anything in the link that makes what I suggested above to be "non factual". "Covered in blood" can, in fact, also infer "bloody".
If the entire comment she made was not akin to such, then the D-Team would have quoted the actual entire sentence with a, "she actually stated this: "...........". But, they did not. They quoted only one word. That's telling IMO.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.If she didn't say "bloody," and they insinuated she did, then that would be a misstatement of fact.
Yes I understood that's what you meantI never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.
I do expect the prosecution to be truthful in their filings. Including a quote of a word never used by a witness in an affidavit is troublesome.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I'll have to side with the Judge who's made the decision and who has seen the video for now.
What if she said he was muddy-looking and had what looked like blood on his clothes, like he'd been in a fight? He looked " muddy and bloody" would sum that up and the PCA would be accurate. The judge has ruled on the PCA being upheld. When SC testifies we'll find out the semantics of it all. MOIf she didn't say "bloody," and they insinuated she did, then that would be a misstatement of fact.
I agree. We had the Franks. Now we've had more recent, sworn testimony under oath since that Franks that debunks the most sensationalized parts of it. Often from the very LE sources the D-Team was citing - for example: no evidence of Odinistic Ritual Sacrificial killings and the complete lack of evidence, despite their investigation, to place any of the SODDI 'suspects' (they've never been named as suspects or even POIs by LE) at the scene in Delphi on the day and at the time if the crimes.I agree.
The things we all went back and forth with earlier this year have almost all been decided and/or ruled on.
In addition we have now heard some actual sworn testimony that supports the prosecution. Not one thing I can think of that that was a win for the defense. We’re talking sworn testimony, not half-truths, and fiction.
Anyway, why we are still arguing points that have been decided is beyond me. Folks may not like the rulings, they may not like to hear true testimony, but it’s done.
Respectfully, you are totally missing that an affidavit is supposed to be an absolute statement of truth...not a paraphrase.
Again: affidavit
But what if she said,(my supposition because we haven't heard her testimony yet) his jeans bottoms were muddy, it looked like he had some blood on his clothes too, like maybe he'd been in a fight. Isn't then saying, muddy and bloody the same?
RSBMMany will discount all this "circumstantial evidence" yet champion that RA can indeed be convicted on the flimsy circumstantial evidence they have on him. The problem as I see it, is there's much more convincing circumstantial evidence pointing to third party actors than RA. I believe if JG denies a SODDI defense, this will most assuredly be appealed.
We haven't heard full testimony yet. Using the subsequently denied FMs as being accurate as testimony, IMO, is folly. AJMOEdit to a previous post. Link to FM below
Was AH lying when she repeated what BH said to her, FM pg 56, throwing his former friend PW under the bus and implicating him in the murders? Is PW lying when he denies BH's narrative and then gives his own account of why he fell out with his bestie?
FM pg 17, 18
Is TH lying when she tells LE that JM borrowed her car on or around Feb 13th to visit his Vinlander (white supremest) "brothers" in Delphi or is JM lying when he said he's never been to Delphi in his life? FM pg 18. Not to mention that TH recorded 3 conversations from JM's phone where in two of them he was looking to pay money for people they could harm or kill? FM pg 19. Was TH fabricating when she said, JM & BH are two of the most violent men she has ever known? FM pg 19. Of course, this is her "opinion" but may well be based in fact. Was EF lying when he identified himself as having been on a bridge where two girls were murdered, and AW was a pain in the *** and troublemaker to his sister MJ? FM pg 91 Or when he told her that he gave her horns? FM pg 98 <modsnip>
I believe EF was telling the truth about where he was and why. MOO Personally, I feel he was duped into believing he was being "initiated" into the Vinlander "brotherhood." MOO TH spoke of "blood in and blood out" meaning acceptance into the secret group. FM pg 19 How sad that he got mixed up (likely early in his life) with people like JM and RAbr.
FM pg 19
Many will discount all this "circumstantial evidence" yet champion that RA can indeed be convicted on the flimsy circumstantial evidence they have on him. The problem as I see it, is there's much more convincing circumstantial evidence pointing to third party actors than RA. I believe if JG denies a SODDI defense, this will most assuredly be appealed.
Everything that is not linked is MOO.
Attach files
Post
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf
Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf FM2
Defendants Additional Franks Notice.pdf FM3