Martha Morris
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 9
Ok today is the first day I have watched any of this trial and I haven't read a great deal about it either.
So I'm completely fresh and watching this defence attorney for the first time.
Now ... while I agree that this bloke would put a glass eye to sleep .. I can't help thinking that there's something very affable and likeable about him, which might appeal to some members of the jury?
I haven't followed any of this trial so have no idea what has gone before. However listening to this closing - it sounds both very thorough and dare I say it, does have some skewed logic to it ( least it does to anyone like me, who is completely ignorant of the case) and his bumbling delivery is somewhat endearing? He's not one of these snide scathing defenders but just a nice man setting it out for us to understand ... is how it comes across.
I watched the 'not guilty' trial in Florida that shall not be named from start to finish and I thought the defence team was absolutely useless ... and look what happened there. I also watched the very recent Florida trial that I thought was an absolutely, without a doubt slam dunk, and I didn't think much of the defence ... and look what happened there?
I sincerely hope that's not the case here ... but I don't think this rather affable and kindly gent is coming across that badly - at least to my eyes and ears.
Just my opinion of course and I know it goes against what everyone else is seeing and hearing, but I just thought I'd maybe offer up an alternative point of view?
I'll get me coat! :blushing:
So I'm completely fresh and watching this defence attorney for the first time.
Now ... while I agree that this bloke would put a glass eye to sleep .. I can't help thinking that there's something very affable and likeable about him, which might appeal to some members of the jury?
I haven't followed any of this trial so have no idea what has gone before. However listening to this closing - it sounds both very thorough and dare I say it, does have some skewed logic to it ( least it does to anyone like me, who is completely ignorant of the case) and his bumbling delivery is somewhat endearing? He's not one of these snide scathing defenders but just a nice man setting it out for us to understand ... is how it comes across.
I watched the 'not guilty' trial in Florida that shall not be named from start to finish and I thought the defence team was absolutely useless ... and look what happened there. I also watched the very recent Florida trial that I thought was an absolutely, without a doubt slam dunk, and I didn't think much of the defence ... and look what happened there?
I sincerely hope that's not the case here ... but I don't think this rather affable and kindly gent is coming across that badly - at least to my eyes and ears.
Just my opinion of course and I know it goes against what everyone else is seeing and hearing, but I just thought I'd maybe offer up an alternative point of view?
I'll get me coat! :blushing: