fran
Former Member
Uhhhhhmmmmmm ................... IF the defendant had had enough income to have paid for AS's assets, then she SHOULD have proved it. The state proved she didn't in what they knew about, which pointed to motive. IF she didn't have that motive, $$$, then she would have proven it already without going to trial for Murder 1.
I swear, these lawyers think the entire population, except them have no common sense. :waitasec:
Course, we have seen a few juries that didn't have common sense, but I HOPE this jury does! :what:
LOL, that attorney just points towards other scenarios that COULD BE, but has shown no PROOF they were, or proven the state's case is faulty. Just ehh, well, it could be this or it could be that. But of course, Ms Moore isn't talkin'. In other words, he's saying it could be this and it could be that, but Ms. Moore hasn't even shared that detail with her own attorneys so the jury should just think she's innocent. :jail:
just sayin'
fran
I swear, these lawyers think the entire population, except them have no common sense. :waitasec:
Course, we have seen a few juries that didn't have common sense, but I HOPE this jury does! :what:
LOL, that attorney just points towards other scenarios that COULD BE, but has shown no PROOF they were, or proven the state's case is faulty. Just ehh, well, it could be this or it could be that. But of course, Ms Moore isn't talkin'. In other words, he's saying it could be this and it could be that, but Ms. Moore hasn't even shared that detail with her own attorneys so the jury should just think she's innocent. :jail:
just sayin'
fran