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.
Me too! I certainly don't have a window that you can see through completely, lest my neighbors catch me nekkid in there. :yow:
I have to turn on my light - day or night.
we have one also, but it's one of those 'frosted glass block' ones.
Same here and it doesn't let light in worth a darn. :no:
This judge has been absolutely hideous. Pathetic.
:moo:
abbie
Me too! I certainly don't have a window that you can see through completely, lest my neighbors catch me nekkid in there. :yow:
I have to turn on my light - day or night.
I wish we could see the entire testimony. It is frustrating just getting bit and pieces.
Did you see the jury? Were they engaged? And of course, what color were they repping?
In Session Judge: “If the murder happened at 3:00 am, what is the relevance of where he was Sunday afternoon? You answer is ‘just in case’ he needed to be alibied?” Glasgow: “This would give him alibi for the morning.” Judge: “Just in case no time of death could be determined, he needs as much of an alibi as possible?” Glasgow: “Yes.” Greenberg: “I don’t even know where to begin with that . . . he has to be alibied for Saturday night, and Sunday, and Monday? I don’t get that. What I’m hearing here is the State has no theory about what happened here. They want to put in the kitchen sink, everything they can, and then say ‘We don’t know what happened, but boy, he wanted her dead. So he must have done it.’ That’s what I’m hearing here . . . if they’re going to say the death occurred on Sunday, between 9:00 in the morning and 6:00 at night, then maybe they’d be relevant. Because there’s no dispute that he was at all these places . . . but otherwise, it’s not relevant. And it’s worrying me a little bit that they can’t give you a straight answer on these things.” Judge: “The court took the information into account, and made a ruling as to the admissibility of this evidence, as it related to the defendant’s claim that he wanted to be elsewhere when the murder occurred . . . given the fact that the State has argued to me and intimated to this jury that this crime occurred in the early morning hours . . . I’m unconvinced that the State’s argument that these documents are relevant to where he was the next afternoon . . . given the stance of the State that the defendant alone is responsible for this, Mr. Magliano’s testimony would be irrelevant on this point. But if they present other evidence as to the relevancy of where he was that Sunday afternoon, I will reverse myself . . . if that’s the case, I’ll revisit it.”
Thank you katydid23, ohiogirl, and WindyCityGirl and anyone else that I might have forgotten for keeping us informed today!
You can bet the defense is about to unload on everyone and suggest things that did not happen (affair with the pastor, etc.).
DP had said that SP would get: "dolled up" when she went to see him. I really feel for Schori's family if they have to hear any of that trash. At first it was Rossetto having the affair with SP.
They will try and trash her hard during their case and one could only hope the jury gets upset by it.
Well, I guess that does it for today. My hope is that IF the jury thought the defense was getting down and dirty today, they will really think they are even worse in their defense presentation of the case.
At least we have the closing arguments after that. The prosecution can go first if they want to but then they can also have the last word. IDK who on the prosecution side would be the strongest closer. Maybe Glasgow? Whomever it is had better NOT screw up!
MOO
judge now bans receipt testimony because it doesn't speak to Drew's whereabouts at exact time state has suggested Savio died.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:furious: