What isn’t understood? What you brought up is a red herring to distract from the witnesses’ apparent deceptiveness in his career field and degree history. A red herring is a logical fallacy intended to distract from the issue at hand.
Smarter attorneys! jmo
Not that it probably matters, but Burgess timestamped it for the wrong day so what he said is timestamped doesn't hold a lot of weight. Maybe Brennan will clean it up on redirect, but this experts work was too sloppy to be fully relied on.
It was instead called a General Studies major, so what?
He should call in sick if he is supposed to testify!
Sorry. Not going to debate with you if this guy misrepresented his credentials lol. That ship has sailed.
Doesn't "pursuing" a degree actually mean that you're enrolled?
I didn't even pick up that may be a new theory of the CW. You may be right. The CW is spending a lot of time on the 3-point turn.
It’s like who is on first lol.
The problem is @sunshineray SB walked into that trial, sat in that chair, banking on these forgery qualifications and then testified. That’s perjury.
Yes! And good luck on Aperture trying to adjust the other three clocks with JOK's wifi router clock. Lexus says ~12:41 and router says ~12:36. That's not the seconds offset they're playing with, but many minutes.
Are you saying you found a source that shows that his school did have a ‘General Studies in Mathematics and Business’ as Burgess listed? That’s a very specific degree. I haven’t.
This trial feels deeply unserious at this point, IMO
On all three CV's he listed the exact same degree program, never correcting it.
www.nbcboston.com
The spread is much larger than the seconds offsets they're using!
On redirect, Brennan asked Burgess about one of his qualifications and seemed surprised when Burgess said no, he did not have it. I wonder why…Oh wait, he lists this ‘Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator’ cert as a professional certification on his CV!
