iamshadow21
Amateur Forensics Geek
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2022
- Messages
- 7,856
- Reaction score
- 75,335
Cross.
Within several days he made the determination and changed Gannon's status to endangered missing.
Asked if he could see her phone. He took it from her.
He had been watching the interview from another room. Was also co ordinating with Rocky and other detectives at the time.
Defense asking for a timeline.
From 29th to 7th, between the phone and house being seized. Lt questions defense's maths skills, LOL.
I think defense is implying the witness was negligent in not seizing the house sooner, or too hasty in seizing the phone. IDK.
Defense implying they could have arrested her for lying (attempt to influence public servants), then. Lt Points out at that time they had no body, that it was only a misdemeanour with what they had.
Defense: Why didn't you arrest her then?
Witness: What would that have achieved?
Defense dithers.
Witness wants to know where this is going. "I want to help you." LOL.
Defense trying to get him to admit that if she had been arrested that she couldn't have dumped Gannon's body. He's not biting. Says they had no proof at that time Gannon was dead, could not have held her. "I think you're reaching."
Defense steps down.
Prosecution comes back, is getting the Lt to walk through probable cause 101. Makes it clear that they did not have probable cause to arrest her until she was actually arrested.
Talking about the calculated move to transport Gannon that distance, following road rules, concealing that from everyone. Talking about how it was all carefully calculated to conceal evidence 'especially 1300 miles away'.
No jury questions.
Next witness!
Within several days he made the determination and changed Gannon's status to endangered missing.
Asked if he could see her phone. He took it from her.
He had been watching the interview from another room. Was also co ordinating with Rocky and other detectives at the time.
Defense asking for a timeline.
From 29th to 7th, between the phone and house being seized. Lt questions defense's maths skills, LOL.
I think defense is implying the witness was negligent in not seizing the house sooner, or too hasty in seizing the phone. IDK.
Defense implying they could have arrested her for lying (attempt to influence public servants), then. Lt Points out at that time they had no body, that it was only a misdemeanour with what they had.
Defense: Why didn't you arrest her then?
Witness: What would that have achieved?
Defense dithers.
Witness wants to know where this is going. "I want to help you." LOL.
Defense trying to get him to admit that if she had been arrested that she couldn't have dumped Gannon's body. He's not biting. Says they had no proof at that time Gannon was dead, could not have held her. "I think you're reaching."
Defense steps down.
Prosecution comes back, is getting the Lt to walk through probable cause 101. Makes it clear that they did not have probable cause to arrest her until she was actually arrested.
Talking about the calculated move to transport Gannon that distance, following road rules, concealing that from everyone. Talking about how it was all carefully calculated to conceal evidence 'especially 1300 miles away'.
No jury questions.
Next witness!