This right here. Wow. Pure judicial fraud in service of pure judicial bias.
But what else can one do to arrive at one’s pre-determined verdict other than tortuously twist and vaporize damning evidence to fit same?
First, let’s get something straight.
No ear witness “contradicted” any other ear witness. In fact, multiple, independent witnesses corroborated each other. While they all may have heard pieces and parts (some much more than others) and the descriptions may have varied, NONE of those auditory pieces and parts were ever disproved not to have occurred. Not hearing something is not proof it didn’t happen. (I regularly sleep through violent thunderstorms, barking dogs and once even slept through an earthquake. LOL
)
Phone records are at most, partial evidence - not definitive, all-inclusive evidence. Such a notion that digital evidence is somehow inherently superior to witness evidence is highly dangerous and grossly unjust. Digital data records only give SOME of the
What, When and
Who ... but NOT the
Why and
How. Neither do they offer any context within the larger, overarching ‘mosaic’.
A chronology is just that - a time line, a framework, nothing more, nothing less. And even a chronology, especially in the context of a murder trial (where certain facts will never be known), is apt to be only a partial roadmap, littered with potholes and detours - it’s not some infallible GPS of Truth, as Masipa would have you believe.
Phone logs can “recreate” only just so much. It can’t tell you what happened
before, during, after or between phone calls, nor the actual content of those calls.
Phone records, chronologies, witness testimonies, physical exhibits, photos, experts, etc. are ALL crucial tools to piece events together.
For a judge to arbitrarily place one form of evidence above one or more others as inherently the “best”, while wholesale trashing other forms of evidence without good cause is extremely suspect (especially when that allegedly “inferior” evidence is highly damning to the accused).
It strongly suggests one is NOT in search of the truth or justice.
Masipa summarily ditched testimony of FIVE State witnesses who essentially corroborate each other’s accounts of gun shots / bangs / female screams / female + male voices / and/or verbal argument. (Strangely, though, she did keep Dr. Stipp’s singular, suddenly-very-reliable eye witness account of Oz’s remorse. *sniff* WAAA!!!!)
Yet, inexplicably, she deemed “poor”, “evasive”, “untruthful” (i.e. lying through his teeth) OP’s testimony as reliable enough to exonerate him of murder!
This murder defendant (who had every reason to lie and had, in fact, been proven a liar) was believed over five State witnesses (all telling the same basic story), who all had no ulterior motives to lie (and who all would have rather been anywhere else than on the stand). UNfreakinbelievable. If this isn’t flat-out bias/incompetence/corruption, I don’t know what is.
Masipa’s dismissive, blanket statement essentially declared ALL human beings fallible ALL the time, ALL their memories fade ALL the time (...or at least in this one murder trial ... wink wink).
If this is so, why bother having freakin witnesses testify in any court case ever?!!
Just pull the phone logs and pronounce judgement!
Hey, we all know that telecom servers and digital databases are 100% infallible EYE and EAR witnesses to the actual crime scene / events in question, right?!
Phone logs can easily distinguish between tone, volume, pitch, inflection, speed, pauses, female screams, male crying, silence vs human verbal fights, gun shots vs cricket bat strikes, even the exact words spoken, right?!
GAH.
Phone records should be used to corroborate eye/ear witness testimonies ... NOT the other way around!
Drilling down beneath her words - reading between the lines - Masipa’s rationale was wholly inexplicable, lousy with gaping holes and downright bizarre. But, in light of her biased, pre-ordained goal (CH with a feather-soft landing), her judgement could not have been otherwise.
Inconvenient fact: Human beings also tell the TRUTH; they also have excellent memories (especially when it comes to stuff like “blood-curdling screams” - which never "fade" with memory).
No matter.
Masipa gave the benefit of the doubt to a proven liar who had every incentive to LIE, while basically dissing all State’s witnesses as “unreliable”, ostensibly because their (highly similar) accounts / times / descriptions didn’t match up perfectly.
Masipa demanded of State witnesses what she did NOT demand of Oscar... water-tight, seamless presentations, perfect in their collective conformity, right up to the last detail, never varying one jot - beyond any and all challenge, correction or reproach.
That, my dear fellow sleuthers, is a flaming red flag.
The more I reflect on Masipa’s dreadful judgement and even worse sentence, the more royally pissed I become.
