Well. Wow. That took quite a dramatic turn.
MrsPC said:
↑
Wow...Prosecutor saw McGee Saturday night out drinking & dancing!!! Claiming defense is deliberately using stall tactics to delay trial.
I hope he has more than just a few minutes of observation to back up such an accusation. There are people who use a wheelchair, but can walk a few yards. Just because you see them walking doesn't mean they are faking their condition.
There are plenty of conditions that might allow a couple of hours of feeling decent, especially at night rather than first thing in the morning.
Does McGee have a history of faking illness to get out of trial?
A history of unethical behavior?
Or is this supposed to just be the first time it's ever happened?
Is Chase just so wonderful that McGee is willing to tarnish his career to delay his fate?
UndiscoveredTruth said:
↑
Cathy Russon @cathyrusson 11s12 seconds ago
#McStay - Cross examination of defense investigator: You didn't look anywhere in Hawaii, did you? (for Kavanaugh) No.
That would be pretty cost prohibitive for the defense. If asking for the court to fund the trip, I can see the state objecting it was extravagant to send the PI on a tropical vacation.
citygirl said:
↑
Really want to stick with you on this , Missy.
But this is big time. Like end of game time.
Is it physical or is it psychological?
And how much leeway should be given for this
I am really thrown by the PT stating the man is out drinking and dancing.
I witnessed a recent case which had 2 defense attorneys. The lead attorney did the majority of the work, had most of the knowledge and did the majority of the questioning. But he totally worked himself to death. He actually fell asleep in court.
I think it would have been much better if he'd requested a delay to actually get some sleep.
mom2chloe said:
↑
Birds of a feather flock together! Who wants to work when you can gamble and or drink and dance the night away?! I work with people who have a tendency for the exact same and it’s a disgraceful despicable work ethic particularly when you are servicing others. Shameful yet not surprising! IMO
The Prosecutor was there as well, I guess they could both be unethical? However, since they were both there I'm guessing it wasn't exactly a rave.
I'm a bit intrigued as to exactly what event they were both attending. I'd think they'd not want to associate as catty as this trial has been.
Karinna said:
↑
I hope the jurors are smart enough to realize DK was investigated and to date that LE have found no evidence to tie him to this horrific crime. He has never been arrested and charged for it either. Without solid evidence against DK there is no case to answer.
I think if that is true, the state should have no problem just showing the evidence that DK was in Hawaii. I mean is it really worth fighting to keep DK's name out of it, when you could just display the proof?
I would NOT want a jury to assume someone was investigated. Because they aren't always investigated. That's how people get wrongly convicted, because the state gets confirmatory bias and doesn't investigate anyone else.
I hope the state simply shows the proof, so that the jury doesn't have to wonder.
smr said:
↑
Within Sight Of Trial’s End, Merritt’s Defense In A State Of Exhaustive Collapse | SBCSentinel
"After testimony concluded on Wednesday, a bleary-eyed Maline explained to the Sentinel why he, McGee and Guerard are being so exacting and driving themselves to the point of disintegration.
“In most cases, the defense needs only to demonstrate to the jury that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt to prevail,” he said. “This case is different, way different. You have babies – a three-year-old and a four-year-old – whose heads were beaten in with a hammer. Showing that there is some doubt our client did this will not suffice, not in this case. We have to prove by a country mile that he is absolutely innocent. We can’t let anything that the prosecution does or says go unchallenged.”
Click to expand...
THIS IS 100000% TRUE.
There are certain cases where you don't go in with the presumption of innocence. You go in guilty until PROVEN innocent. Maline is completely accurate on this. They do have to go above and beyond what a regular defense would need to do. No doubt about it.
We just dealt with a case where the defense thought they'd demonstrated innocence, (with an electronic alibi for starters) but the jury convicted because the correct suspect wasn't allowed to be introduced at all.
The correct suspect also was NEVER investigated. At all. Period. They found the defendant and decided he did it and quit investigating. At least one witness lied to cover for the true suspect, but we couldn't point that out either. It was appalling.
So, the jury convicted the one they had in front of them, even though there absolutely was not evidence to support the conviction because they wanted to hold someone accountable.
This jury will likely be looking for any justification to hold someone responsible for these brutal crimes. If there isn't another suspect offered and if everything the state says isn't rebutted, the defense will end up with a client on death row regardless of guilt.