Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,084
a new thread since the other one is quite full.
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.
Who do you think should prosecute the next case? And what order would you put them in?
This time it was:
1. Becky Holt
2. David Saacks
3. Howard Cummings
My recommendation would be:
1. David Saacks
2. Boz Zellinger
3. Becky Holt
Who do you think should prosecute the next case? And what order would you put them in?
This time it was:
1. Becky Holt
2. David Saacks
3. Howard Cummings
My recommendation would be:
1. David Saacks
2. Boz Zellinger
3. Becky Holt
Okay I'll start since I'm talking to myself at the moment anyway... <watches tumbleweed blow by>
1. Counting on multiple affairs to = murder doesn't seem to work. Most people discount affairs. "Yes s/he cheated but that doesn't mean that s/he...." Unless there's evidence of a conspiracy between a couple or unless the perp confided in their amore, you don't seem to get much leverage.
2. Make the Math Work (and don't ignore it). Mileage, # of gallons purchased, time, distance...gotta make it simple for the jury to see how this could have played out.
3. List ALL the Coincidences - by closing there should be a list of at least 15 or so items to show the jury that all these things happened to this one person on this one day. Now how reasonable is it to believe it's JUST a coincidence? Why prosecutors don't utilize this simple tool to make their point I'll never understand. Big posterboard with the list of every coincidence. How hard is that? It would be very effective, IMHO. Worked in the Scott Peterson case.
4. Show ALL your evidence. Don't hold back. Show the emails, documents and all the things that a jury needs to see to understand history and context.
5. Don't RUSH the Case! - Yes the BC trial took too long, but don't force your trial to be over before you actually present a full and cohesive case. The judge kept saying the state was "ahead of itself." That's a clue right there that you're moving too fast and leaving stuff out!
6. Talk about the open issues...openly. There's a 2nd pair of shoe prints, 2 cigarette butts, one hair. Don't pretend they don't exist. Make them part of your opening statement. Then get past that and show how thorough the CCBI was at the scene. SIX days they were there!
7. Make Spivey Drink a Red Bull Before Testifying - Spivey was very low key...way too low key. Don't put your lead detective on the stand for a total of 1/2 a day. C'mon! A 3+ year investigation warrants more information and detail. Have the detective clearly articulate WHY the evidence kept leading them to JLY and not to anyone else.
8. Learn How To Do Aggressive Cross Exams - and Then Do Them! -- passive cross-exams in a capital murder case have no place. Don't be afraid to really dig in and nail someone's hiney to the wall. If the defendant gets on the stand, unleash some holy he!! and keep him on that stand. The jury can handle it.
What about the dog? Where was he? We know he slept on his dog bed on the master bedroom floor beside JY. Where was he? Would he willingly follow a couple of strangers down the hall and let them shut him in another room or closet?
Or would the burglars just let him roam around the room while they brutally killed his mistress despite hearing her screams and seeing her struggle and then gurgle in her own blood and die? And where were his bloody footprints? Yes, jurors, what about the dog and the strangers?
What about the email to his sister where he said he hoped they didn't arrest anyone.
Why? He didn't ask how Michelle died. He didn't ask LE how they were doing in the case. He didn't offer to help LE. But he told his sis he hoped they didn't arrest anyone?
Perhaps they didn't win any points with the 'affairs.' But if they showed the timing, how they seemed to accelerate until the murder!? I think the timing of the affairs was lost in all this.
IF they want to see JY as a liar, IF he were to testify again, they should ask the jury in around about way, if he couldn't be truthful to his wife, the mother of his child and the mother of his unborn son, how does he expect us to believe anything he says?
I think they should bring up the life insurance too. Not only that, but how he didn't apply for it because it 'would look bad for him.' Just like he wouldn't testify or make a statement to keep his daughter. OR he wouldn't talk to LE to help find his wife's killer.
Then we're supposed to believe him!? His excuse for everything that points towards his guilt? His excuse. Holding someone's finger was a first responder? which is why he looked up head trauma!? OMG, I can't believe anyone would fall for that one!
Sorry, these should have been emphacized and HOPEFULLY they try again and use them!
fran
Seriously you guys need to write this all to them! Brilliant you guys!!!