Thanks geevee...I cannot believe he did that "joke" or whatever it was on that poor woman...just disgusting. I can understand why the judge is not letting it in, but I think if the jurors see that, it will make a big huge difference in how they view this case.
I went back to the first thread and I was reading the tweets of opening statements, and of Vergillo's testimony w/Martinez. As far as the defense opening statements and what Mehrens said Chrisman's version of the story is...I don't find it believable. First of all, he sayd Virgillo was sitll on the phone when they were knocking on the door....I dont' buy that at all. I can't imagine a police officer, at the point of knocking on someone's door and about to enter, on a phone call. First of all, it would have been dangerous for him! They don't know what's behind the door for any call...why would he risk his life by being on the phone? Also, I'm sure that like Training 101, some basic training thing every officer knows. I believe Vergillo's version that he was on the phone walking up to the door, but when they got there and were about to knock, he told the guy he's gotta go bye.
Then, they get to the point with the pepper spray and Virgillo walks out to catch his breath, and Chrisman claims he stayed out there. Called to Chrisman to taser him. Chrisman tasers him, then either the tweets left something out, or it goes straight to Chrisman shooting the dog. Then Danny is reaching for Chrisman's gun, mad that he shot the dog. Then I guess there's another gap in tweeting, Chrisman says he had to shoot Danny 'cause Virgillo was outside and he had no help.
Ok first of all, why would Virgillo have continued to stay outside even AFTER HE HEARD A GUNSHOT GO OFF (gunshot killing the dog)??? If I'm understand correctly, Chrisman is trying to say that Virgillo was outside, he had no help and felt threatened, that's why he killed Danny....but it makes ZERO sense that Virgillo would be just standing nonchalantly outside even after he hears a GUNSHOT. Even if he was outside, he would have come inside immediately, and thus witnessed the deadly point of the shooting with Danny. And his witness testimony of the shooting does NOT match up with Chrisman's version. Then, the next problem with his story is that if he felt so threatened by Danny, who supposedly reached for his gun, then why does the physical evidence show that Danny was on his way outside WITH HIS BIKE?? Oh, so he was reaching for the gun and threatening Chrisman, at the same time as he was trying to flee with his bike??
All the physical evidence corroborates Virgillo's version and discounts Chrisman's version. Also, Chrisman is saying Virgillo was outside and that's why his taser was found outside? So what, was Virgillo attempting to taser Danny from several feet away?? That makes NO SENSE.
The bike is the biggest piece for me...it clearly shows Danny trying to flee. None of Chrisman's story makes any sense.
I went back to the first thread and I was reading the tweets of opening statements, and of Vergillo's testimony w/Martinez. As far as the defense opening statements and what Mehrens said Chrisman's version of the story is...I don't find it believable. First of all, he sayd Virgillo was sitll on the phone when they were knocking on the door....I dont' buy that at all. I can't imagine a police officer, at the point of knocking on someone's door and about to enter, on a phone call. First of all, it would have been dangerous for him! They don't know what's behind the door for any call...why would he risk his life by being on the phone? Also, I'm sure that like Training 101, some basic training thing every officer knows. I believe Vergillo's version that he was on the phone walking up to the door, but when they got there and were about to knock, he told the guy he's gotta go bye.
Then, they get to the point with the pepper spray and Virgillo walks out to catch his breath, and Chrisman claims he stayed out there. Called to Chrisman to taser him. Chrisman tasers him, then either the tweets left something out, or it goes straight to Chrisman shooting the dog. Then Danny is reaching for Chrisman's gun, mad that he shot the dog. Then I guess there's another gap in tweeting, Chrisman says he had to shoot Danny 'cause Virgillo was outside and he had no help.
Ok first of all, why would Virgillo have continued to stay outside even AFTER HE HEARD A GUNSHOT GO OFF (gunshot killing the dog)??? If I'm understand correctly, Chrisman is trying to say that Virgillo was outside, he had no help and felt threatened, that's why he killed Danny....but it makes ZERO sense that Virgillo would be just standing nonchalantly outside even after he hears a GUNSHOT. Even if he was outside, he would have come inside immediately, and thus witnessed the deadly point of the shooting with Danny. And his witness testimony of the shooting does NOT match up with Chrisman's version. Then, the next problem with his story is that if he felt so threatened by Danny, who supposedly reached for his gun, then why does the physical evidence show that Danny was on his way outside WITH HIS BIKE?? Oh, so he was reaching for the gun and threatening Chrisman, at the same time as he was trying to flee with his bike??
All the physical evidence corroborates Virgillo's version and discounts Chrisman's version. Also, Chrisman is saying Virgillo was outside and that's why his taser was found outside? So what, was Virgillo attempting to taser Danny from several feet away?? That makes NO SENSE.
The bike is the biggest piece for me...it clearly shows Danny trying to flee. None of Chrisman's story makes any sense.
