42 minutes were not recorded/They're off in the ether, along with the 42 minutes of sallyport video.
Problem is that the CW didn't say a word about the video being mirrored. They just let it fly. If they didn't know it was mirrored, they are still responsible for being "misleading". If they did know, then that's a whole 'nother problem for them, and the missing 42 minutes of video is the extremely large cherry on top of a huge scoop of shadiness.The defense and many of Reads supporters implied the CW had doctored / flipped the video to deliberately mislead the jurors
Evidence was presented in the way it was receivedProblem is that the CW didn't say a word about the video being mirrored. They just let it fly. If they didn't know it was mirrored, they are still responsible for being "misleading". If they did know, then that's a whole 'nother problem for them, and the missing 42 minutes of video is the extremely large cherry on top of a huge scoop of shadiness.
IMO.
42 minutes were not recorded/
It’s been repeatedly stated video surveillance is motion activated - no motion=no video
It’s therefore NOT MISSING & not floating around in the ether
Yeah, they just bampf!ed out of there.How is there video of people standing there and then suddenly they’re gone?? They wouldn’t need to use motion to leave the room? So they’re either wearing Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak or they are all Nightcrawler from the X-Men. JMO
I question why cw did not point out to jurors on direct initially that they were viewing the drivers side of the vehicle and not the passenger side. You cannot spin that imo, it is misleading. The whole focus is on that side of the car. CW is misleading by omission and then the later 'explanation' ofcourse utilises plausible deniability. Except not so plausible imo and here's hoping the jury are not that gullible. They will hopefully at least take note of the trust worthiness and directness of Lally. It's all on Lally imo not Buhkenic. mooThe defense and many of Reads supporters implied the CW had doctored / flipped the video to deliberately mislead the jurors
Presented the way it received, certainly, but without the explanation that the video was mirrored. Talk about disingenuous and misleading. If they didn't realize it, then they need to own up to it in front of the jurors. IMO.Evidence was presented in the way it was received
There isn’t MISSING VIDEO - that’s being disingenuous & misleading to claim that it is
cracked tail light only.