clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,891
- Reaction score
- 29,368
Did the judge say how much lead time he would give the parties to assemble once they receive word a verdict has been reached?
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.
GC's rebuttal was effective. She was strong and steady and got in a few zingers about the defense's arguments. I don't see how the jury could find anything other than G for both defendants. JMO.I was gone the last few hours and I’ve had no internet!!!
How did the rebuttal go?
How are you all feeling!?
Oh absolutely! The A’s have no loyalty except to each other. They couldn’t give a crap about KM.Still giggling about Gardenista’s post, thinking KM was writing her new name over and over.
In her mind, she is probably thinking she is nearing her prize, CA, that is. He and the rest of the narcissistic A’s have their bags packed and Uber on call for a trip to MIA, and then out of the country. All of them have long forgotten KM, and her assistance.
IMHO
The prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of a crime so that defense counsel always use a scattershot approach hoping to raise any questions, however minor. The great late Louis Nizer made an argument once that I found particularly persuasive. He looked hard at the jury and said, "The truth has a smell and we all know it. In the real world, cause and effect operate so we always see the logical and appropriate consequences that follow. You, the jury, can use your experience and common sense to gauge the evidence. And from its weight you will recognize the truth. Memories may not be perfect and there may be missing pieces to the puzzle because, quite simply, humans are not machines and people will try to mislead and prevaricate in order to avoid being found out or held responsible. I submit, however, that in the end the smell of the truth will always guide you. Look at what is logical and appropriate and use those guides to test the evidence presented to you."
Wonder what Garcia and Magbanua are saying to eachother?
KM: What do you want for your last meal?
SG: Shrimp
The prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of a crime so that defense counsel always use a scattershot approach hoping to raise any questions, however minor. The great late Louis Nizer made an argument once that I found particularly persuasive. He looked hard at the jury and said, "The truth has a smell and we all know it. In the real world, cause and effect operate so we always see the logical and appropriate consequences that follow. You, the jury, can use your experience and common sense to gauge the evidence. And from its weight you will recognize the truth. Memories may not be perfect and there may be missing pieces to the puzzle because, quite simply, humans are not machines and people will try to mislead and prevaricate in order to avoid being found out or held responsible. I submit, however, that in the end the smell of the truth will always guide you. Look at what is logical and appropriate and use those guides to test the evidence presented to you."
KM: What do you want for your last meal?
SG: Shrimp
Annoying for sure. But not a bad strategy. The odds that one person on a N Florida jury would hold the view that "the government" is somehow an evil entity that is designed to oppress and defraud are not low. DeCoste is basically trying to change the state from the good guys seeking justice to the bad guys who are arbitrarily throwing around their power to crush innocent people. Total BS IMO but if you can make that narrative stick with one person--mistrial.
Thank you so much! I’m still catching up! I’m optimistic, but still nervous. Dan and his family deserve justice.GC's rebuttal was effective. She was strong and steady and got in a few zingers about the defense's arguments. I don't see how the jury could find anything other than G for both defendants. JMO.
Wonder what Garcia and Magbanua are saying to eachother?
The prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of a crime so that defense counsel always use a scattershot approach hoping to raise any questions, however minor. The great late Louis Nizer made an argument once that I found particularly persuasive. He looked hard at the jury and said, "The truth has a smell and we all know it. In the real world, cause and effect operate so we always see the logical and appropriate consequences that follow. You, the jury, can use your experience and common sense to gauge the evidence. And from its weight you will recognize the truth. Memories may not be perfect and there may be missing pieces to the puzzle because, quite simply, humans are not machines and people will try to mislead and prevaricate in order to avoid being found out or held responsible. I submit, however, that in the end the smell of the truth will always guide you. Look at what is logical and appropriate and use those guides to test the evidence presented to you."
Thank you so much! I’m still catching up! I’m optimistic, but still nervous. Dan and his family deserve justice.
I wanted to say "thank you" for posting. I missed the rebuttal today."Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman has the last word on the case's closing argument"
So did I! Wendi was moving her head up and down when told of Dan’s murder....as if she already knew!Great observation!! Noticed the SAME with Wendi A during the initial LE questioning!