formerlyme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 10,217
I am ok with no DP if there is no possibility of release
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.
I've just listened to the hearing, and in my opinion, it's not relevant to this case. The judge was just citing rulings made in other cases, case precedents, in going through options available to him. He decided the appropriate sanction was to remove the death penalty, and if evidence needs to be excluded as a result of late disclosure he will deal with that through any subsequent motions in limine filed by the defense.Do you know what was meant by these statements?
"dropping the charges" and "smaller quantum of prejudice"
I can’t imagine a worse punishment for her than life behind bars. So undramatic, though I’m sure she’ll give it her best shot for as long as her inmates will tolerate it.Huh. I am actually okay with the DP being removed. I'm totally fine with the idea of her being locked up forever.
I SO hope you're right!I also agree, but I think both will be found guilty of all charges. Taking what we know from Chads PH, and the release of calls, CCTV and Loris demeanour when caught in Hawaii and subsequent extradition to Idaho, she knew they were dead and I fully believe she killed them herself.
ETA I also think she justified each death in that scheming brain of hers. I also think she was the one who shot Charles.
Why is it that in every picture I see of LD she has that sickening smirk on her face.You'll hear the judge use these statements in the hearing.
Could be but I've never seen a decision like this made via a motion to the court. I could be wrong though.A lot of jurors have issues with the DP. I can see that in this case, it was probably best to drop it. Makes me wonder if there is a possible plea deal negotiation going on behind the scenes.
Why is it that in every picture I see of LD she has that sickening smirk on her face.
Can someone remind me if any of Chad's children were classified as "dark"?
I have never seen this as well … and this decision made by the judge was so close to the trial start date.Could be but I've never seen a decision like this made via a motion to the court. I could be wrong though.
Watching now. He has been very critical of the prosecution all along. I agree.Scott Reisch/Crime Talk is doing a call-in show right now... open to everyone.
Lol, thanks for the warning. I won't log in. I don't think his criticism is proportional to the late disclosures.Watching now. He has been very critical of the prosecution all along. I agree.
Agree to disagree. I agree with everything Scott Reisch has said about this case.Lol, thanks for the warning. I won't log in. I don't think his criticism is proportional to the late disclosures.
The judges decision was fair, I think. The judge explicitly stated that the prosecution was not nefarious of neglectful, just in a hard place. Yet if evidence issues cause harm to the defense, the prosecution's culpability or lack of it in creating the evidence issues are irrelevant.
Even if the issues are nobody's fault, it can cause prejudice to the defendant. Hence a remedy. Boyce took death penalty off the table as a remedy. He explained why he didn't think the other remedies were appropriate.
The point of the remedy is to make certain the defendant's rights are protected. It is not to punish the prosecution. However, some content creators are pounding the prosecutors- as if they are taking the punishment role.
And in the mean time, they are changing the subject from justice to the victims to "The prosecution is not being fair to the defense." How will that play impact a jury?
The am not saying that there is no place for pointing out what appear to be mistakes that interfere with justice and fairness for all. But some creators are not doing this, IMO. They are changing the subject and forgetting what crimes are being adjudicated now. And possibly, these creators are prejudicing the jury to acquittal.
(I wish I could post laughing's pictures here to refocus.)
MOO
Agree to disagree. I agree with everything Scott Reisch has said about this case.
Who is Laughing and what pictures?Lol, thanks for the warning. I won't log in. I don't think his criticism is proportional to the late disclosures.
The judges decision was fair, I think. The judge explicitly stated that the prosecution was not nefarious of neglectful, just in a hard place. Yet if evidence issues cause harm to the defense, the prosecution's culpability or lack of it in creating the evidence issues are irrelevant.
Even if the issues are nobody's fault, it can cause prejudice to the defendant. Hence a remedy. Boyce took death penalty off the table as a remedy. He explained why he didn't think the other remedies were appropriate.
The point of the remedy is to make certain the defendant's rights are protected. It is not to punish the prosecution. However, some content creators are pounding the prosecutors- as if they are taking the punishment role.
And in the mean time, they are changing the subject from justice to the victims to "The prosecution is not being fair to the defense." How will that play impact a jury?
The am not saying that there is no place for pointing out what appear to be mistakes that interfere with justice and fairness for all. But some creators are not doing this, IMO. They are changing the subject and forgetting what crimes are being adjudicated now. And possibly, these creators are prejudicing the jury to acquittal.
(I wish I could post laughing's pictures here to refocus.)
MOO