That's weird...he asks her if she can read his lips and he's the one with the hearing aide.To the court and also to women!
Did DH just ask the caregiver testifying if she could read his lips?
moo
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.
That's weird...he asks her if she can read his lips and he's the one with the hearing aide.To the court and also to women!
Did DH just ask the caregiver testifying if she could read his lips?
I’m replying to myself to make a correction to my post (it was too late to edit) …. the chocolate lab’s name that belongs to Rogan Gibson is “CASH” … I think I wrote Chase as I had recently watched The Behavior Panel on YouTube and my favorite panelist on there is Chase … I think this trial is killing off my brain cells!I will need to see all these times and dates tracking the cell phones written down so I can review. However, I do believe that PM’s friend Rogan Gibson’s chocolate Labrador, who was featured in the video, nailed the voice of AM to the kennel area that night. The video evidence and the long trail of cell phone data, as well as the data from the infotainment system of AM’s vehicle, should be enough evidence to sway the jury. Being the grandmother of several chocolate labs, I will be ecstatic if “Chase” the chocolate lab helps convict AM. All the above in my opinion …
…Griffin tries to establish with Tuten that Paul liked working with his hands, so he wasn’t *always* on his phone. Tuten doesn't really agree. Griffin: But Paul had a habit of putting his phone down while he worked and forgetting it, then having to find it later. Tuten agrees….
Wonder if it could have been Buster? JmoI don't think I've seen anyone discussing this aspect of it, so I'll bite the bullet and go there.
Maggie and Alex were married only a year before my husband and I got married.
After all these years of marriage, my husband knows with all certainty whether I wear underwear under my pajama bottoms. Heck, he knew that information quite well even before we'd been married a year. I will not incriminate myself further than that.
So, to me, the fact that Maggie's housekeeper knew that info but whoever laid out the pajamas (on the floor??? in a doorway??) didn't leads me to two different thoughts:
1) Alex and Maggie had not shared a bedroom and/or been intimate in a fair bit. Even if they weren't intimate and hadn't been for a long time, if you are sharing a room with your spouse they see you getting dressed/undressed and they would know your underwear and pajama preferences.
2) Someone other than Alex put out those pajamas and underwear before SLED came into the house. If Alex told someone else to do it, he might have told them "put out her pajamas"--meaning it quite literally, while the person who got that order interpreted that to mean pajamas and underwear from their own assumptions. If this supposed person did it of their own volition without an order or without consulting Alex, they included the underwear based on their own assumptions about Maggie's nightwear habits.
And yes, in theory this could be a recent change in Maggie's preferences, but I think Blanca would have made that clear in her statement. And I think we can safely assume that SODDI didn't murder Paul and Maggie while Alex was gone, go up the house, and stage the pajamas and underwear.
(I can't believe I'm analyzing a crime victim's underwear usage and its implication on her sex life/state of marriage in regards to how it points to someone other than Maggie putting out the clothes. But I think it's a valid point.).
Yes, you can clearly see and hear their sadness. I found Nathan Tuten today to be a serious young man, clearly not looking forward to re-living the death of his friend.So sad to see these young men who were lifelong friends of Paul, testifying in the trial of Alex for his murder. I cannot imagine how awful that must feel. Paul died as quickly as he was betrayed, but they live with the shock and senselessness of that betrayal still.
I am thinking that bomb threat was a message from someone more powerful than the M's. jmo my conspiracy self thoughts.Was that a little smirk on AM’s face?
I was there yesterday, replaced the last name of Smith with Wilson - too much info!I’m replying to myself to make a correction to my post (it was too late to edit) …. the chocolate lab’s name that belongs to Rogan Gibson is “CASH” … I think I wrote Chase as I had recently watched The Behavior Panel on YouTube and my favorite panelist on there is Chase … I think this trial is killing off my brain cells!
Exactly !!Got em up here in MI. too, it's a drug in the form of a doughnut lol.
Harpootlian is askew.I missed the whole day. What was the main takeaway?
IRRC he did not...the store didn't have any.Did Alec ever get his pi̶n̶e̶a̶p̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶r̶s̶t̶ orange Capri Suns?
Asking for a friend
Interesting how AM will acknowledge a guard(s) as he leaves the courthouse. moo
I agree, he's workin that gum like a part time job!Update: concurrent with testimony on Maggie's phone, AM has turned his mints into chewing gum. Of Olympic proportions.
It his jaw is his polygraph, he is not at ease. Just saying.
JMO
I totally agree. It's not likely that PM forgot he put his phone in his pocket. I think the defense blew that one. In trying to insinuate PM didn't always answer right away or return texts and calls quickly because he forgot where his phone was, JG overlooked the evidence by admission by their very own defendant where the phone was.But we do know for AM’s own admission (to Law Enforcement during his taped interviews following the murders) that he pulled the phone out of Paul’s pocket.
So, if the Defense is trying to imply from Tuten’s testimony that PM out the phone down and forgot where it was the night of the murder, this is untrue. The phone was on PM’s person, in his pocket.