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.
Usually just the ones that wear blue shirts and cowboy hats.
ETA: IMO MOO
I missed why this is an issue . ???bye bye #5... he talked to his employer... school doesn't get out until 2:30 lol
Anything is possible: little green men from mars could have POSSIBLY murdered the McStay family: hired killers could have POSSIBLY killed them, and on and on it goes.
The question is not WHO POSSIBLY MURDERED THE FAMILY, The question is who, based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, murdered the McStay family? Sorry, but POSSIBLE does not get it. I believe the evidence points to CM- you may disagree with that, but the word "possible" has no place in this discussion. This is what defense attorneys do, they throw a lot of crap at the wall and hope something sticks. I hope the crap does not stick to the wall in this case.
I missed why this is an issue . ???
N/M I read back a few posts.
An example that comes to mind would be the defense lawyers in the Lindsey Partin trial . Their tone was loud , argumentative and aggressive , even with the doctors who were involved in 3 yr old Hannah Wesche’s care ,as well as the coroner who completed the autopsy. They had no dog in the fight about WHO hurt little Hannah.
I don’t think the defense attorneys did their client any favors by acting that way.Quite the opposite.
With lies, one of which is she states that a passport is required for border crossings from US to Canada. This is only required if traveling by air.
They might have been better off not presenting anything , simply rest after the State’s case.The prosecution has prove their case, the defense doesn't have prove anything.
Yea, I am watching her now for the first time and something that people in college need to consider if they are thinking about being courtroom laywers is to really think long and hard if they are going to be a good public speaker and if they will like that part of the job.
Public speaking and presentations are a big part of being a courtroom laywer arguing a case. And its the audience reaction to their presentation skills which is very important.
Some laywers may be great lawyers but their presentation skills may not be well received.
With that said and with this being the first time I have watched her, I am being put off by her style. She is coming across as angry and basically shouting/screaming. I am getting a negative reaction to her style. And that does affect how I think about the case because even without thinking of any evidence I am starting to feel like I dont believe some of what she is saying. And there is no basis to think that other than her style which is not being received well by me.
JMO of course.
The vertical distance between the reflection and the headlight seen on the surveillance video is much closer than the distance between the electrical box and the headlight seen on the photo of the truck.RSBM
Dr Rudin used points he selected on the truck, the one which led to the rejection being the side marker light at the rear. If his assumption about the illumination being the side marker light was erroneous his results were flawed. He made a very simple exercise sound very complicated and it was virtually impossible for the jury to understand his methods and the meanderings of his mind, IMO. Simply put, if it was the latch that reflected he would not have had the truck underground. It would not have been a rejection.
It's obvious with the re-painting of the truck and the impossibility of replicating the conditions of that night, that the prosecution would not agree to his unreasonable demands for a reconstruction.
For the first time I've been able to see what they are talking about when they refer to what could be the electrical box on the front bumper, in closing arguments.
I grabbed a screenshot - click to enlarge
View attachment 186850 View attachment 186851
Don't we need to check whether the little green men had ex conviction of burglary?
But the PT has failed to prove CM is the culprit. They have failed big. They are desperate now.
Contact the State Dept. perhaps, they'll give you a refund.Hmmm I couldn’t go into Canada without a passport a few years ago so I got one.
McStay Family Murder Trial - YouTubeFirst link for me a single irrefutable evidence actually linking Chase to the murder, please.
I don't know how you confuse confidence for desperation.Don't we need to check whether the little green men had ex conviction of burglary?
But the PT has failed to prove CM is the culprit. They have failed big. They are desperate now.