Scalex
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2017
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 4,240
Agree. The hardest part for me, and I know many others because I had messages, texts, etc, was wondering why they didn't include certain evidence or call certain witnesses. When you have a case with so much evidence & so many witnesses, a big part of the process is to pare it down so it doesn't overwhelm a jury. You always have to come back to the original goal - a conviction. Best practice is to connect the dots as closely & directly as possible without unnecessary clutter.
Also agree that Mark's trial will be completely different. Completely. Some of the same witnesses, but with the addition of several more. More, and different, evidence. Will take on a way different tone. I dread it. I already feel like I need a shower just thinking about it. ugh
Exactly I agree. The bright side is that I don’t think the blood spatter discussions and bludgeoning talk will be very much of the MS trial. They don’t need to decide if a murder occurred and who or how it happened. The focus will be primarily on the conspiracy and planning, and after the fact. I think it helped all sides, including the state to have the trial severed.
Last edited: