GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #1

[my2sense]

I think Martin is guilty, but I don't think this daughter is coming off very well at all IMO. She's battling too hard instead of just letting the truth come out. I don't blame her for feeling that way, just saying I don't think it helps with credibility. Is it okay for me to say that? Not trying to victimize a victim, just making an observation.

 

[ziggy]

Rachel is not very prepared. Wouldn't you think the state would have given her documents of her interviews?

She is really struggling. She just said, " I don't have a photographic memory".... Bad prepping. Do not offer anything. Answer yes or no or say you don't understand the question.

 

[minor4th]

It really does not matter either.. The defense is trying to trip her up and she won't trip up. She is being truthful and it is coming across authentic.

It matters because the defense is reading portions of prior statements out of context and that could have an impact on the jury.

 

[gngr~snap]

So if he killed her, then went to the awards ceremony .... how did he manage to alter the time of death?
Could he have drugged her earlier, she passes out, he goes to ceremony and then drowned her between the ceremony and picking Ada up?
It would take time for the drugs to absorb and peak.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[aa9511]

If this guy does get off....he needs to have some serious mental health help....I cannot believe he might just walk free to keep doing the things he does....who is going to be responsible for keeping his relatives safe from him then??

 

[Bravo]

IMO even if any of the Jurors question Rachel's testimony I think her Sisters will corroborate the main points.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Defense is showing Rachel is not a credible witness. This is not an opinion. This is unfortunately what is happening.

<modsnip>

In mine she is holding her own and coming off as credible, Honest. She is being picked apart and still holding ground.

The defense attorney is not asking complete questions..

And the ones she are asking are not about the crime or the facts, Just to try and trip her up and it is obvious.

If her client is innocent, get to questions that really matter. That Rachel does not remember date and time from a crime or depositions in the last 6 years, does not make her not credible.

It looks like the Defense is just trying to demean her. Not get to real facts.

 

[Chelly]

Rachel is not very prepared. Wouldn't you think the state would have given her documents of her interviews?

She is really struggling. She just said, " I don't have a photographic memory".... Bad prepping. Do not offer anything. Answer yes or no or say you don't understand the question.

Witness is not understanding the questions. Prosecution may have erred in calling this witness.

 

[popsicle]

Rachel is not going to let this def lawyer put words into her mouth. Good for her.

 

[G&AMom]

I really hate how the defense uses prior statements -- they're not doing it right if they're trying to impeach witnesses. And if they're using those statements for any other purpose, they are not allowed to just read portions of a witnesses' prior statements.

Plus, they keep harping on, "you said xxxxxx" and then arguing about what the word actually means, as if the witness should have used a dictionary when answering questions.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IMO even if any of the Jurors question Rachel's testimony I think her Sisters will corroborate the main points.

Yes. And so far there is nothing about her testimony that is coming off pro defense.

 

[gngr~snap]

If this guy does get off....he needs to have some serious mental health help....I cannot believe he might just walk free to keep doing the things he does....who is going to be responsible for keeping his relatives safe from him then??

If he gets out IMO his days are numbered!

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[minor4th]

Plus, they keep harping on, "you said xxxxxx" and then arguing about what the word actually means, as if the witness should have used a dictionary when answering questions.

Right and that's totally improper. I'm surprised the prosecution is not objecting.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And this defense is not asking questions.. She is stating things to the witness confusing her.

And these things she is bringing up, Don't matter.. So Alexis asked questions??? HER MOTHER WAS DEAD!!!!!! She is entitled.

 

[BD1]

I just really don't think she can help the additional statements and facial expressions, etc. She can't stop them, but her testimony has to be heard.

 

[G&AMom]

It matters because the defense is reading portions of prior statements out of context and that could have an impact on the jury.

Minor, why do you think the prosecution put her on the stand? Whether she comes across as credible or not, this is beyond excruciating to watch. I'm not getting a sense of what they're trying to get from her.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Right and that's totally improper. I'm surprised the prosecution is not objecting.

I think he is not objecting because it looks like the defense is badgering and that can only help..

 

[Thundar]

Well the defense is getting a lot of points if making the witness stumble and say I don't remember, it's been so long ago I don't remember, and reading from a prior interview counts for points........I am not a lawyer and I can see this going either way.....the jury is either going to feel sorry for this witness or they are going to just throw out all her testimony because of all the I don't remembers.........which I am sure is what the defense is counting on......

 

[Bravo]

I think Rachel's raw and very emotional testimony hits hard

 

[renatae]

This defense attorney very hostile with Alexis, after being so obsequious with everyone else.

Sorry, on stupid HLN time delay.