arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Powerful!!! Giving me chills. Great analysis about football/quarterback.
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.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker is back to finish closings after short break. He says Angela testimony was that "Billy told her to buy two pairs of shoes - it was Billy and Jake that planned this.”
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker tells the jury "there's a lot of insinuations in this case the state has made, look for the hard evidence.”
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker tells the jury to consider defense witnesses - the pastor from AK who said Jake was a little slower than George. "That describes a person who could be pressured. George stood up to his mother and father.”
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker says "there's been a lot of talk about guns." He says George is "a gun guy." He trades a lot - almost like currency.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker asks jury "you saw George’s demeanor, compare that to Jake’s and Angela’s. His mother wouldn’t even look at him ... And Jake was laughing and smiling and smirking while talking about murders. You’re going to trust those people?"
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker - "I don’t know what you folks are going to believe ... but if you believe that George was up there, don’t forget that Jake said he had no intent to kill, he went along at the last second."
Everyone of us can agree we've seen/heard/been part of viscous custody battles in our lifetimes. And MOST people don't tralop down to the courthouse for assistance. Who has that kind of lawyer monies? We handle it amongst ourselves.Parker is pathetic ..poor guy. Pointing out the unreasonable insanity of the case proves the point
I had to leave for a bit. When did Clark Kent begin?
I had to leave for a bit. When did Clark Kent begin?
Parker had to acknowledge GW might have been along that night in case the jury (given GW has no alibi) believes he was there. IMO Parker did a good job of poking holes in JW and AW testimony.CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker - "I don’t know what you folks are going to believe ... but if you believe that George was up there, don’t forget that Jake said he had no intent to kill, he went along at the last second."
Weird. Why would your defense attorney even mention you being at the crime scenes? He should be saying George wasn't there.
If the jury believes George was at the crime scenes then it doesn't make a pile of @#$% difference that
Jake said "he had no intent to kill, he went along at the last second."
I thought Jake was so pose to be a liar? So that means you can't believe Jake and it also means that if the jury believes George was at the crime scenes it doesn't matter why he went or if he shot anyone or not. Doesn't matter if he didn't plan to directly kill.
JUST GEORGE GOING TO THE SCENES SHOWS HE IS GUILTY. PERIOD
If I was on the jury and was lied to in opening by defense that George wasn't there and now he is saying he was?? I'd be pi$$ed.CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Parker - "I don’t know what you folks are going to believe ... but if you believe that George was up there, don’t forget that Jake said he had no intent to kill, he went along at the last second."
Weird. Why would your defense attorney even mention you being at the crime scenes? He should be saying George wasn't there.
If the jury believes George was at the crime scenes then it doesn't make a pile of @#$% difference that
Jake said "he had no intent to kill, he went along at the last second."
I thought Jake was sopose to be a liar? The jury shouldn't believe him. So that means you can't believe Jake.
This also means that if the jury believes George was at the crime scenes it doesn't matter why he went or if he shot anyone or not. Doesn't matter if he didn't plan to directly kill.
JUST GEORGE GOING TO THE CRIME SCENES SHOWS HE IS GUILTY. PERIOD.
Parker had to acknowledge GW might have been along that night in case the jury (given GW has no alibi) believes he was there. IMO Parker did a good job of poking holes in JW and AW testimony.
Superman's Walmart example, to me, is exactly how the Wag's shoe buying trip went down: GW may have been there, but had no idea what AW bought or planned to buy. It really exemplifies the prosecutions entire case. GW had no idea before, during or after the murders. His rebuttal can go either way, supports both the prosecution and defense case.
ETA: GW had to have had his head very deeply buried in the sand. If he suspected at any point, he didn't have to turn in his family members.
Parker's like ...man, why didn't I say that?
Say what?