I don't disagree with you completely. However, I think it demonstrates a desperate measure by the defense. Jurors will weigh a mother's claim that "this was found at the house" to one of his best friend's testimony that he never saw the guy smoke a cigar.
As others pointed out yesterday, she continually refers to "Michelle's death", not that the young lady was brutally murdered. Maybe it means nothing, but an oddity nonetheless. She again has zero empathy for what happened to her daughter-in-law and unborn grandson.
WOW! So he was in the 9th grade when he mooned his granny.... Something a young teen would do...
WOW! So he was in the 9th grade when he mooned his granny.... Something a young teen would do...
Where is HC going here?
I have 5 children, two of them are boys now 21 & 19... they would have NEVER mooned any of their grandparents. Boys might moon their friends as a joke... but typically children become very modest about their bodies even around their parents by about 8 years old and would never expose themselves to family and/or friends. JY definitely has issues about what is & is not appropriate behavior regarding his rear-end and genitals.
My teen ever mooned his Grandma he would not be sitting for a lifetime. HOw disrespectful
Definitely agree on the PY lack of empathy for MY - someone mentioned the "of course" comment, I thought it was telling too.
However, the State contested the cigar story when they did not have to IMO. People may smoke cigars on occassion a few times a year - alone or in a group smoke, for any number of reasons or no reason. You don't have to be a "cigar smoker" to smoke a cigar on occassion. That JD never witnessed him smoking a cigar is not indicative that JY never did, and an easy pin to sink. I am sure the DT loves these set-ups. As a juror I would just need one small indication (i.e. humidor, receipt from smoke shop, witness), aside from JY's testimony to dismiss the State's contention on this and at the same time make me wonder what other claims are embellished or not supported. State should stick to the evidence its sure of.
She found a humidor? shaking head!:innocent:
I never would have either, but again its not like he was the only person in the world to have done it to a granny... No one is perfect! I see it as a young kid doing something dumb!! ALL kids do something done unless you have perfect kids...
Definitely agree on the PY lack of empathy for MY - someone mentioned the "of course" comment, I thought it was telling too.
However, the State contested the cigar story when they did not have to IMO. People may smoke cigars on occassion a few times a year - alone or in a group smoke, for any number of reasons or no reason. You don't have to be a "cigar smoker" to smoke a cigar on occassion. That JD never witnessed him smoking a cigar is not indicative that JY never did, and an easy pin to sink. I am sure the DT loves these set-ups. As a juror I would just need one small indication (i.e. humidor, receipt from smoke shop, witness), aside from JY's testimony to dismiss the State's contention on this and at the same time make me wonder what other claims are embellished or not supported. State should stick to the evidence its sure of.
Took awhile, but was successful. Very confusing though. He backed mama into a corner regarding GC and JY's violent episode with the engagement ring.
Took awhile, but was successful. Very confusing though. He backed mama into a corner regarding GC and JY's violent episode with the engagement ring.