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

[websurfer]

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

Sorry, on stupid HLN time delay.

:seeya:
Wild about trial online every day it is live and no commercials..

Rachael is getting flustered ..because she is very sad and has no chance to
take a breath and being told about her mental state? What I mean who would not be in a stressful state of mind with all that has happened to the family?
Thier brother died by suicide with pills.
This is a sad lady on the stand.

 

[Sulamith]

I get confused if the defense lady is asking a question or when she is reading out of the prelim. hearing transcript.

 

[gngr~snap]

I had that problem with the volume, I searched through my lappy till I found the equalizer and pushed everything up to the top and now I can hear it well without earbuds.

Ooo BE CAREFUL!
you will scare the poodoobie out of yourself later on another site!
(I've done it)
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think Gustin is doing a horrible job. She is not hitting on things that point to real evidence. Just things to try confuse Rachel.

It is obvious..

 

[minor4th]

This defense attorney is NOT effective AT ALL

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I don't know how someone as delicate as Rachel could ever be 'prepared' for her testimony. IMO she relives it again and can't or won't cope with what happened that day and what it meant.

And IMO the defense is deliberately trying to make this witness have an even harder time understanding. And exactly what is the point this atty is trying to make. What is the point?

You can tell by her facial and body reactions when certain facts or people are discussed. That, to me, means she is literally re-living the events as though they just happened.

Once into the nitpickery of the prior testimony, she's sharp as a tack. So many witnesses have had this done to them and they've continually added context to a nit-picked comment.

Not ONE major error has been found that would effect the outcome of the testimony. Just little bits of somewhat different language here or there.

Defense is making a bad decision to do this. It would be different if she had done a 180 about her testimony.

 

[G&AMom]

They need her testimony about the wet pile of clothes she found in the garage. She was also a witness to the Gypsy/Temple encounter. And she testified about how Martin said Michele was found in the tub.

Some of her testimony may be duplicative of what Alexis will testify to, but it's more credible coming from two witnesses as opposed to just having Alexis testify and taking a chance that the jury may not believe her.

Ah. Okay, thanks.

Personally, I think she's coming across as truthful. She doesn't seem angry, she seems broken. She admits she saw him crying, doesn't try to embellish or exaggerate.

 

[RaineInMD]

This poor girl...she is trying so hard to answer the questions.

 

[Thundar]

defense: your dad had problems with his toe......witness: he had a big toe.....did he have problems with it......he said it hurt.........

 

[Bravo]

She has lost me:scared: Where is she going with this questioning:banghead:

 

[fifteen89]

I'm pretty sure if I was on the jury I'd be wanting this to move along. Whatever "points" she's trying to make with Rachel, they're nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty.

 

[gngr~snap]

Any juror that has lost a parent probably gets it and it might not look good to them -how Rachel is being questioned ...
Moo

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[minor4th]

I think Gustin is doing a horrible job. She is not hitting on things that point to real evidence. Just things to try confuse Rachel.

It is obvious..

Yes! She is awful. She asks very confusing questions, so I think the lawyer is confused -- so the witness is obviously going to be confused.

 

[fifteen89]

defense: your dad had problems with his toe......witness: he had a big toe.....did he have problems with it......he said it hurt.........

I probably would've said "yeah, he's got two big toes". Yeesh.

 

[popsicle]

defense: your dad had problems with his toe......witness: he had a big toe.....did he have problems with it......he said it hurt.........

:lol: :floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

Ah. Okay, thanks.

Personally, I think she's coming across as truthful. She doesn't seem angry, she seems broken. She admits she saw him crying, doesn't try to embellish or exaggerate.

I think she's doing fine. She was so emotional at first that it seemed like it was hard for her to concentrate or speak, but she's doing well now. And, yes, she is credible and does not seem to be spinning her testimony to be more negative against Martin.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

I get confused if the defense lady is asking a question or when she is reading out of the prelim. hearing transcript.

Me too. What page? Item line number? Okay what was the question again? And yes I would like to read what was written above it because, for me, it allows me to have my memory refreshed as to why I answered like I did. If I was Rachel and needed extra time to answer I say let her read to herself the stuff written right before the part this lawyer wants her to answer.

I understood exactly what Rachel meant when she said her dad ran the sheet rock up the stairs and didn't want any help. Is this atty pretending not to understand?

 

[minor4th]

What the heck is the point of this questioning about what Martin paid for?

 

[Thundar]

Defense just made a mistake bringing up the crap that daddy paid for.......this is not playing well with me.....I can't imagine it is playing well with the jury.....has nothing to do with the murder or nonmurder of this witness's mother.......

 

[popsicle]

Oh, he was generous with money...he can't be a murderer. :headbang: