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.
Wait, is there no court today? Why?!?
I thought Brady's reaction was about what I expected as they only have the mental illness hat to try to avoid DP for their client....I think this woman had a well thought out agenda here just at their client did and bet a bit of checking around will find her an activist against dp and other things. She will be on the streets soon (3 weeks most) and that is scary thought....she may want to carry on in her "jimmy's" tradition.
So if the jury comes back and feels enough mitigation was presented and they want to stop here with lwop I can't help but wonder if the state has any cause to want a do over on this phase based on a woman ranting about mental illness which is at the heart and soul of the defense case. I do not think we have heard the end of this.
Brady's reaction made me think hmmmm was this planned by the defense? After a split second I thought no they wouldn't do that, Would they?
This jury has many Fridays off and they make plans to possibly catch up on their jobs etc. and so far have indicated no flexibility in this...so even just getting this later yesterday they are off today. They also do not want to stay past the 5pm stop time. Probably for the best as they seem to really need some rest and get away from each other...so many sick. But....these long weekends usually result in a juror or two or attorney coming in on Monday to the judge with issues of exposure to the case over the weekend. I imagine Judge Semour is holding his breath hoping to get through this without a major problem...he is a great judge but even he is getting to the point of a "short fuse" with some of this stuff.
I'm sure the defence team would have been yelling for a mistrial if this woman hasn't been trying to support the shooter.
I have a question. When people are referring to Deborah Cave as "nuts" and "nutso" do they mean she just did an outrageous thing or does that mean mentally ill?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm sure the defence team would have been yelling for a mistrial if this woman hasn't been trying to support the shooter.
I have a question. When people are referring to Deborah Cave as "nuts" and "nutso" do they mean she just did an outrageous thing or does that mean mentally ill?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I took time to watch GB closing again - as I was quite distracted from the event. I suggest re-watching it. GB points out important points about what the law states for mitigation.
As the defense kept stating mental illness, most people, at least I was- were assuming mental illness was a mitigate.
According to the law, and he shows it clearly- it is not that a person who has MI is a mitigator , BUT, if they have decreased capacity that prevents them from distinguishing between right & wrong. He explains it very well. Because the defense kept saying the 'but for mental illness' statement. But a person having mental illness does not mitigate their actions.
He starts around Time 39:01 [video=youtube;4KYUaNbYfFE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KYUaNbYfFE[/video]
Probably a bit of both -- usually the terms, "nuts" and "nutso" are used lightly -- not a serious description of someone who is really mentally ill. When someone does something silly or proposes something ridiculous, one might say, "Are you nuts?" and it is not taken as an insult, it's like a similar reply of, "Are you crazy?" But in a certain context, it could be considered more seriously, but certainly not as a usual thing.
Thanks for explaining. It sounds similar to something used here in the UK. They say "he/she was mental!" - not to mean mentally ill but rather to mean what he/she did or said was really strange and not sensible at all.
I'm a bit concerned about the closing from the prosecution. I was watching closely and listening but when I think back all I remember is that woman shouting out. We have the opportunity to watch the video back, the jury does not. I hope they can remember what was being said. If I was GB I would have asked to start again in the interest of fairness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He mentioned the fact that he could see the jurors attention go to the person and then to all the yelling even outside the courtroom...he was well aware that he lost them for awhile. and that is critical as his closing was limited to 40 minutes ..as he spoke after he still seemed stunned and not sure what to say to the judge....there will always now be a questionmark as to the impact of that outburst.
I wonder if it's too late for him to do something about it now the jury have gone to deliberate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk