Just today?
She didn't seem intimidated. She seemed p*ssed, IMO.He was trying to intimidate the witness, and in doing so pretty much admitted that the foundation of their case is false. Too bad the prosecutors aren't a little more polite.
I do not think that is the law at all. Mrs. Cooper had no (legal) obligation on any of that.
Better, IMO, if JA had stuck to what she knew.
But weren't they at one of the lawyers' office? Why is it her responsibility to speak up and not the defense?
He was trying to intimidate the witness, and in doing so pretty much admitted that the foundation of their case is false. Too bad the prosecutors aren't a little more polite.
So you're saying the black duck was never in the foyer? Just the other two? Because she didn't say anything about the color, just that it wasn't THE same ducks.
ETA: I said early on in this, that I'll bet they were packed away, along with the sticks since NC was packing up the house to move and it turns out that is exactly what it was. Isn't it funny that JA - ONE PERSON stating that there were ducks there on the Friday before resulted in *proof* of a struggle in the foyer. In fact, I think even JA said she wasn't positive they were there on Friday, just that she noticed they weren't there when she went on Saturday.
JA said she saw them on the 11th. That started the whole mess since pictures showed they weren't there on the 12th. She said it after seeing the pictures from the 12th.
Were they given to Sandlin as payment? If so, neither Sandlin nor Mrs. Cooper had any duty to disclose.
But weren't they at one of the lawyers' office? Why is it her responsibility to speak up and not the defense?
Were they given to Sandlin as payment? If so, neither Sandlin nor Mrs. Cooper had any duty to disclose.
I don't see it as the defense lawyer's issue either, unless those objects were the subject of a discovery request from the state. I didn't catch all the testimony, so if that were so the state would protest and I didn't catch that. I may have missed it.
If they were not, then it was totally proper to call your witness and blow the prosecution theory out of the water, as it pertains to the ducks.
Does anyone think that the 1.3 inch mark on Nancy's neck could have been what was the mark made when one of those ducks was possibly used as a lethal weapon?
I believe a wooden duck was used, and one of the sharp edges left a mark after the blow that broke Nancy's hyoid bone.
I asked gritguy but he must have missed it.
Does the duty to disclose (discovery) go for both defense and prosecution?