- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 18,961
- Reaction score
- 308,752
Respectfully enlarged in purple --As I pointed out yesterday, literally the first sentence of his article contains a known inaccuracy. Blum claims that for two intense days in a Boise courtroom last week, he listened, as prosecution and defense engaged in a combative back-and-forth on a multitude of crucial evidentiary issues. There are lots of things he could interpret subjectively, but the length of the hearing is not one of them. While it may have felt like two days to Judge Hippler, the hearing only lasted a single day. If the self-professed "longtime reporter on this case" can't even get the number of days of the hearing correct, what else in the article might be inaccurate? I know the source is an accepted source, but, like any other accepted source, that does not mean that I have to accept everything it says it as truth. Most msm sources contain reporting inaccuracies regularly, anymore. JMO
Yes, ut may indeed felt like two days to Judge Hippler, but that's nothing compared to the last hearing which aged him a year! (He had 2026 on his brain.)
Honestly, I can't imagine what it's like to be AT, stand before a judge, and tell him the reason you don't have your full alibi yet is because it's hiding in the part of discovery you haven't had time to look at.
And I further can't imagine what it's like to be AT, standing before the same judge, and tell him that the rest of the alibi is somehow connected to a 7 minute gap a full hour before the crime.
I just know that I personally wouldn't want to be an attorney on the receiving end of a cautionary reminder from the judge that I was an officer of the court or that he found ZERO evidence to support claims I'd staked my professional reputation on.
But that's just me.
JMO