CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[UndiscoveredTruth]

Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 54s54 seconds ago
#McStay - Det. Edward Bachman Lead Investigator San Bernardino. Defense has recalled him in their case. He's being asked about his investigation to verify Dan Kavanaugh's alibi.

 

[gitana1]

Thanks @gitana1

I wondered that. I guess it is fair enough that if he doesn't testify, he can't bring in his pretrial statements.

I don't think I have seen this before - usually it is the state trying to get them in!

So that explains why the defence is making their convoluted argument that the state has opened up all 8 hrs of testimony via the other recordings.

It's a great way to try to get in "testimony" without being subject to cross examination. But I don't think it will work.

 

[Tortoise]

Zero evidence they didn't have lunch. Evidence is CONSISTENT with Chase's account. Prosecution can't prove their point without reasonable doubt.

It's not the prosecution's contention that they met - it's the defendant's - hence it's his burden to prove.

 

[Chelly]

If CW is found guilty, does DK have a legal case against the Defense Team for defamation of character?

 

[Tortoise]

I'm sure I just heard someone snoring.

maybe it was me.

 

[gitana1]

It's not the prosecution's contention that they met - it's the defendant's - hence it's his burden to prove.

That's right.

 

[Karinna]

If CW is found guilty, does DK have a legal case against the Defense Team for defamation of character?

I posted about that a couple of pages ago. He very well could have a case under what i posted about those laws in California.

 

[gitana1]

If CW is found guilty, does DK have a legal case against the Defense Team for defamation of character?

No.

 

[Karinna]

I'm sure I just heard someone snoring.

maybe it was me.

LOL,

 

[Chelly]

I posted about that a couple of pages ago. He very well could have a case under what i posted about those laws in California.

Thanks so much for responding. I am sorry I missed your post upthread.

 

[smr]

It's not the prosecution's contention that they met - it's the defendant's - hence it's his burden to prove.

Prosecution has the burden to prove him guilty without reasonable doubt. So far they have failed terribly, even with the insane number of objections trying to keep the jury in the dark.
(As I'm typing now, my ears are inundated with one objection after another from the PT during the live streaming. Ouch. )

 

[wary]

Exactly. As other posters have mentioned previously he was supposedly with JM at CFA at lunchtime and no one else was there. What a load of BS. CFA is usually always busy with customers getting their food.

Well, I’d thought that ‘no one else was there” meant—no one else that CM and JM knew.

 

[Chelly]

No.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Karinna]

No.

Thanks for clarifying. So does this law not pertain to that either?
(quote)
c. Epithets and Derogatory Suggestions.
California courts have held that to be liable, a defendant need not make a direct accusation or charge of misconduct; epithets or descriptive words or opinions that carry with them the implication of acts of misconduct are actionable. See Newby v. Times-Mirror Co. (1916) 173 Cal. 387, 395 [statement that person is “hypocrite”]
Libel and Slander - The Basic Law In California | Stimmel Law

 

[Mony Mony]

Good grief. Maline is beating that DK drum hard. Why not ask Dat Avila all these questions. Oh yeah, Maline doesn't really want a straight answer. He only wants to muddle and confuse.

 

[Karinna]

Thanks so much for responding. I am sorry I missed your post upthread.

That's okay, i just reposted to ask our Verified Attorney.

 

[Tortoise]

Back at 1.30. Gone into chambers by the looks of it, to sort out the 8 hr interrogation issues.
Bachman not available to continue this afternoon.

Conundrum

 

[Karinna]

Well, I’d thought that ‘no one else was there” meant—no one else that CM and JM knew.

Oh okay, i'm not sure? That could be then.

 

[gitana1]

Thanks for clarifying. So does this law not pertain to that either?
(quote)
c. Epithets and Derogatory Suggestions.
California courts have held that to be liable, a defendant need not make a direct accusation or charge of misconduct; epithets or descriptive words or opinions that carry with them the implication of acts of misconduct are actionable. See Newby v. Times-Mirror Co. (1916) 173 Cal. 387, 395 [statement that person is “hypocrite”]
Libel and Slander - The Basic Law In California | Stimmel Law

There is a litigation privilege:

California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 47 | FindLaw

 

[Karinna]

There is a litigation privilege:

California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 47 | FindLaw

So what does that mean exactly?