re Audrey 'bombshell'
2020?
So that's why Boyce allowed Def two cross exams of Audrey and refused State final re-direct
Perhaps you are right-
However this motion is beginning to come into focus for me.
I now think they did expect Audrey's statements- both prosecution and defense.
Defense obviously VERY MUCH did not want Audrey's statements given. Defense was very wrong to characterize her statements as untrue in this motion. Defense was wrong to call her statements crap. But Boyce is favoring defense IMO- not for nefarious reasons. Why risk an easy appeal?
The other thing I get now is the expert. Because a big piece of this is: Did Lori (for her trial- the same ?? will apply to Chad) use purported beliefs to manipulate people or hold sincere beliefs that others manipulated? Archibald loves to use sarcasm and word play. The psychological expert is probably lined up for two reasons. One, for if the defense claims she was not able to form intent. (Which I don't think they will try to do.) Two, to say that her beliefs were sincere and harmless and abused. She was sincerely praying away evil spirits. Chad and Alex were out smothering people and knifing them. The prosecution is going to say Lori used fake beliefs to justify murder.
The expert can opine about if the beliefs were sincere or false.
(I'm no expert, but my opinion
Yeah, that insurance lady was a really BAD witness. She was there to say what was "usual" but had only settled 15 claims in total, ever.
She thought 3 DC's would have been too many, and somehow alarming, when instead it is far fewer than the norm. When my parents died, we were advised to get a dozen or more, each time, by funeral home advisors who do this every day. She was really testifying to her own ignorance, imo.
Is she ignorant, or biased? Either way, as a result, if I'm a juror I have to consider all her testimony of what is "usual" as garbage. And it makes me look side-eyed at the prosecutor who is trying to feed me testimony from someone like that, to prove something-or-other.
IMO, she didn't have the expertise to know about death certificates. Also, she possibly has primarily been around educators with relatively simple financial affairs to settle.
I don't find that to make her a bad witness. First of all, unless somebody is scrambling to assemble money for the funeral and death expenses, it is SUPER weird to come in Monday morning to claim insurance when the love of your life for 30 years and the mom to 5 of your stunned, grieving children died Saturday morning. And it wasn't his first errand, he had already ordered death certificates. Shouldn't he be getting and giving support from and to family and loved ones?
Then, after Monday, Chad had the funeral/burial on Tuesday and a memorial and reunification with his goddess on Wednesday, he moved out of the marital home on Wednesday, and still managed to find time to stop by Ms. Yancy's office with the death certificate he had received.
And if her spidey senses were telling her something was off, and the jury believes she felt something was off, that is going to leave a big impact. Even if the jury was thinking, "that's not an unusual number of death certificates."
MOO