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.
C'mon. This isn't CSI Miami.Whatever, you call them... the whole crime scene == contaminated! moo
The prosecution has created a lot of questions that need to be answered.This whole line of questioning by defense is so tedious. My goodness! This is why this trial will take 6-8 weeks so defense can nit-pick every darn thing. Evidence collection containers: glass or plastic? Sterile swabs are in what type of container? Could anybody sneeze over the cup? Blah blah blah. Ugh!
JMO
I have no problem with defense pointing out shoddy investigation but when you nitpick a witness to death it makes you look bad. People were laughing at the defense atty. Pick a few key points/issues with each witness and move on. Otherwise you lose all the punch. This is just bad lawyering. Aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theory. JMOC'mon. This isn't CSI Miami.
Processing an outdoor murder scenes in the snow and dark probably isn't a strength of the pd in a town that averages a murder or two every decade.
The evidence cup being plastic doesn't mean the drunk driving wife didn't kill her husband. Let's not get silly.
I guess it only takes one juror - but I'd think there is a point where this level of scrutiny almost makes the defense look weaker.
Tactical Red Solo Cuptm
C'mon. This isn't CSI Miami.
Processing an outdoor murder scenes in the snow and dark probably isn't a strength of the pd in a town that averages a murder or two every decade.
The evidence cup being plastic doesn't mean the drunk driving wife didn't kill her husband. Let's not get silly.
I guess it only takes one juror - but I'd think there is a point where this level of scrutiny almost makes the defense look weaker.
I think much depends on what happens next. For instance, if the blood in the cups plays a big role in the case, then the jurors will understand why the tedious cross was necessary. If it is never mentioned again, it is likely to be annoying.I disagree. Even if you think Karen's guilty, the quality of this investigation is really sub-par. They don't document the evidence they pick up. They don't record their interviews. They don't even write down the names of the people they are talking to. None of this stuff is high-tech investigative techniques. It's just basic police procedure that we see in every other trial.
Exactly what kind of training did these "detectives" receive?
rsbm.Pick a few key points/issues with each witness and move on. Otherwise you lose all the punch. This is just bad lawyering.
There are quite a few. I've seen over a dozen. All from trips, events, parties, etc. post high school. One was from a baby shower in June 2021.can you elaborate? are we talking recent photos from various events that show an ongoing relationship or are we talking about photos from high school, etc.?
if you want to prove she's actually lying... vs. just saying it because they want it to be true... then there should be no problem pulling out other witnesses that can detail their friendship.
Not all is lost... curious as to what the experts will reveal about JOK's injuries. What may have happened to him that fateful night. I am not convinced his (JKO) arm were from claw marks and bite marks from an animal. mooC'mon. This isn't CSI Miami.
Processing an outdoor murder scenes in the snow and dark probably isn't a strength of the pd in a town that averages a murder or two every decade.
The evidence cup being plastic doesn't mean the drunk driving wife didn't kill her husband. Let's not get silly.
I guess it only takes one juror - but I'd think there is a point where this level of scrutiny almost makes the defense look weaker.
I think we're on the same page on this.I have no problem with defense pointing out shoddy investigation but when you nitpick a witness to death it makes you look bad. People were laughing at the defense atty. Pick a few key points/issues with each witness and move on. Otherwise you lose all the punch. This is just bad lawyering. Aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theory. JMO
If the montage you can find on Twitter is what you're referencing... and this is the "perjury" evidence... this strikes me as very weak.There are quite a few. I've seen over a dozen. All from trips, events, parties, etc. post high school. One was from a baby shower in June 2021.
I would agree. If there is a specific point... of course. If it's just - throwing slop at the wall to confuse one tired jury member - that might be a worthwhile defense approach (if I was worried the conspiracy angle wouldn't hold up)... but as a group of intelligent and capable evaluators we can see how these things don't really fit the 1) conspiracy or 2) she did it, outcomes.I think much depends on what happens next. For instance, if the blood in the cups plays a big role in the case, then the jurors will understand why the tedious cross was necessary. If it is never mentioned again, it is likely to be annoying.