for whatever it is worth, which may be nothing, the Prosecution also objected to some details in 2 of 4 victim impact statements. While I agree interrupting is rude, and JT didn’t exactly help make his objections sounds any nicer, I believe they were trying to act within the law on behalf of their client. The very case they cited had, as part of its appeal, details where the prosecution let in parts of victim impact statements that go well beyond the statutory details permissible and how they allowed written statements into the record from people not classified as “victims”.
Sadly, and I am just speculating based on what Vicki shared with some creators and the media + what we heard today, the State didn’t seem to assist much in helping provide the victims’ assistance in writing and submitting only things they’d be allowed to say . I know Vicki wrote that she was left on her own to write to the Court because the State wasn’t helping her much; and if they did I think they would’ve helped respectfully encourage the removal of any statements not allowed as far as the law goes to be entered into the record. As the prosecution said, they objected to details of things that were not proven at trial, were not proven by the evidence introduced at trial, and they couldn’t support specifics like that because it doesn’t align with the evidence and the facts.
It’s easy to assume that the defense is just as slimy and manipulative and whatever other negative remarks, but I think they were focused on the record especially for the future. Personally speaking I’d rather have a victim be unable to say something at sentencing (because it’s beyond the scope of what is allowed under the statute) rather than they be allowed to include those details and the defense later on gets even more to include into their appeal. But that’s just my take on it. I think it could’ve potentially been slightly easier for the victims to read their statements if the State had assisted them and advised them on what was allowed and not allowed, but I’m grateful that despite being objected to they were able to think on the fly and still deliver most of what they had prepared previously.
(And no, I don’t support LV or her attorneys and their objections; solely trying to add context regarding the possibilities for why the objected to such things as seen over the weekend and today).
