photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 5,054
- Reaction score
- 27,793
The answers Mullin provided make me think he is worried about possibly perjuring himself if he answers yes or no vs repeating his assertions on who the witnesses saw.Well, I find it very interesting that the Defence doesn't like that Steven Mullin actually DID answer the questions at para 9 ( A. through D.) but not by not answering "yes" or "no" but rather he did so by making "conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man that Betsy Blair observed, and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed etc…" IE: "But it was Richard Allen that BB and SC saw" or words to that effect.
They didn't like his answers obviously, but his specific answers tells me that he isn't into "hypothesizing about what-ifs'" and has reason/evidence to believe that the man they observed was in fact Richard Allen.
Perhaps these witnesses were shown RA in a photo line-up ... and directly identified him as the individual they saw. We'll find out at trial!
______________
With Para 8 and Joshua Robinson: The D wants to learn "what questions were asked" of him rather than asking him their own questions in their own deposition. Weird. Robinson is a guard (one with the patch) and they want to know what questions "Elsie" asked him. She is an IDOC staff.
Seems to me the Defence is still trying to get that DENIED SODDI by Odinists in there through a back door. Good luck with that.
I don’t think JG is going to compel the deponents to answer the questions and I imagine she or the Prosecution will shut these down if they come up at trial as well. I wonder if the D only filed this to add to their ever growing pile of reasons to seek appeal on possible conviction?