FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #15

[clearskies1]

I agree. I don't think she offered anything that we didn't already know. Maybe, that the money was wet. Was there anything that anyone else felt contributed to this case by KM's testimony?

I was disappointed. I just expected more details.

She said she had direct communication with Charlie and Charlie hired the hit men to kill Dan. First hand knowledge. JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

Rushbaum trying to emphasise that there's no evidence that Charlie conspired alongside Sig because they never contacted each other & Katie didn't contact Sig when Charlie was present

( Obviously, if one believes KM, she was clear that she was seeing both lovers simultaneously and did not explicitly tell CA before the hit that she was using SG as the assassin)

Brief recess. Balliff involved. IDK why

The state is not arguing Charlie conspired with Sig. They concede that there was no contact between Charlie and Sig. Katie was the middleman. The mastermind. Is he confused?

 

[cottonweaver]

He did? How could you mess this up?

snipped by me, just for focus
Yes, Corbett accepted to Rushbaum just now that he- Corbett - had messed up the slide and attributed messages to the wrong person.
so what Corbett had Katie texting was actually what Charlie texted

 

[cottonweaver]

The state is not arguing Charlie conspired with Sig. They concede that there was no contact between Charlie and Sig. Katie was the middleman. The mastermind. Is he confused?

I know.
I was just trying to relay Rashbaum's tactics

 

[Tapeartree]

I am starting to believe the defense case is to confuse the jury about little inconsistencies and hope there is at least one hold out.

 

[amicuscurie]

snipped by me, just for focus
Yes, Corbett accepted to Rushbaum just now that he- Corbett - had messed up the slide and attributed messages to the wrong person.
so what Corbett had Katie texting was actually what Charlie texted

Rash is good at getting people to admit stuff that doesn’t matter but makes them look like liars. Both of them say equally bad things about Sig on the text. Why would you say stuff like that about someone you were afraid of? Why is she sick of him trying to control her, why is he consoling her on her love life? Etc.

 

[Gypsy Road]

My audio is bad! Anyone else? What is judge saying?

 

[nodamselindistress]

I could not hear either but seems like one of the courtroom observers messed up

 

[nodamselindistress]

Oh, CTV just explained that a juror could not hear testimony because of murmuring in the gallery

 

[amicuscurie]

I hate the way Rash starts questions with “By the way.” It’s a trial. He’s not just asking, like “oh, by the way…”. It’s like argumentative in a way that I can’t quite explain, like these are little incidental things that just happen to add additional support for his theory. “Oh, and by the way, you never had any contact with Sigfredo…” Like, WTF?

 

[cottonweaver]

Rash is good at getting people to admit stuff that doesn’t matter but makes them look like liars. Both of them say equally bad things about Sig on the text. Why would you say stuff like that about someone you were afraid of? Why is she sick of him trying to control her, why is he consoling her on her love life? Etc.

yep It's certainly what he did during the KM cross yesterday

the firehose of falsehoods & confusion
It's not only that he wanted to surprise the State with his curveball defence but he also knows that already this was a complex case before the curveball and he's almost wanting jurors to throw up hands in bafflement & despair. (State has to clarify and clean all this up - it's on them)

However what he just did with Corbett's slide error was more traditional - attacking competence & shedding doubt, which is a shame cause most of Corbett's slides were likely correctly transcribed

 

[Gypsy Road]

I hate the way Rash starts questions with “By the way.” It’s a trial. He’s not just asking, like “oh, by the way…”. It’s like argumentative in a way that I can’t quite explain, like these are little incidental things that just happen to add additional support for his theory. “Oh, and by the way, you never had any contact with Sigfredo…” Like, WTF?

I hate that too. I also hate “Isn’t it true…”

 

[amicuscurie]

What is going on? Why is the witness still sitting there? Is he, like, doing work on his little computer?

 

[vislaw]

I agree. I don't think she offered anything that we didn't already know. Maybe, that the money was wet. Was there anything that anyone else felt contributed to this case by KM's testimony?

I was disappointed. I just expected more details.

She is singlehandedly making the transcript of the Dolce Vita call admissible by authenticating it. That is huge.

 

[cottonweaver]

What is going on? Why is the witness still sitting there? Is he, like, doing work on his little computer?

Not sure but I can still see the lady baliff addressing/ speaking to the gallery

Just prior to this the Judge gently admonished the public for using too many facial expressions, nodding etc during testimony.

I think that one of the jurors complained to baliff about public distracting them. Emphasis on think - IMO
( Katie Cool Lady, yesterday said this is a very serious dedicated jury who don't even attempt to chit chat during any pauses)

ETA
Looks like jury have left courtroom. Live feed camera is now on the seal. Judge maybe with them?

 

[amicuscurie]

She is singlehandedly making the transcript of the Dolce Vita call admissible by authenticating it. That is huge.

If you read the transcript carefully, Charlie is not threatening to kill whoever is threatening them. It’s complicated, but it sounds to me like he is saying that the person who is blackmailing them knows he’s messing with “the king,” Sigfredo, and if you do that, “you’d better kill him.” When it’s all chopped up and you can hardly hear it, it sounds like he’s talking about himself, how he wants to kill the blackmailer or have him killed. But if you really look at it written down, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s speaking as though he is the blackmailer.

This alleged threat Charlie made to have whoever was doing this killed is a big part of the state’s case. It was in a lot of the news coverage. It’s sensational. Because they couldn’t really hear the context until they got the expert. But I think you can poke holes in it. Especially if Charlie testifies.

 

[clearskies1]

I hate that too. I also hate “Isn’t it true…”

Also "Are you aware that (x)"? He asks that when there's been no evidence of x. GC should object to those questions.

 

[amicuscurie]

Also "Are you aware that (x)"? He asks that when there's been no evidence of x. GC should object to those questions.

OMG, so true! He’s gotten in a lot of “evidence” that way and gotten the jury to think stuff happened that didn’t.

 

[cottonweaver]

Also "Are you aware that (x)"? He asks that when there's been no evidence of x. GC should object to those questions.

Absolutely. makes me mad

 

[amicuscurie]

Absolutely. makes me mad

I’m telling you, the state seems ill prepared to deal with this type of attorney. “Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.“ (DID Charlie buy a car that day?)