The prosecution begins - "I do have to clear up some of the things they said or I feel I would not be doing my job" - the judge replies "Please do"....She then says that means she will be getting into the facts....and that she'll try to keep it as brief as possible. Again the judge says "Please do..." She keeps talking and the judge is trying to say something more - the attorney next to her taps her arm because she was unaware he said anything -- then the judge says "excuse me" and says he doesn't mean to interrupt her -- then says "You have the floor now. Feel free. You state as much and as long as you feel necessary. Thank you. Thank you vey much I can hear your concern." (10:43)
She then begins and talks about the phone call from SM at the payphone, then the 90 phone calls made to Heathers phone, then the things said by TM. At 17:08 he interrupts her to ask what defendant she was talking about and she clarifies TM. At 18:07 she says she's not going thru all the evidence but "just the points Mr. Truslow made" - (18:25) The judge says "Let me interrupt you...." He then goes into talk about if her witnesses will even be allowed to testify..... He goes on to say "There's not question all of those things you talked about are indicia of somebody that might not be telling the truth but that's not for me to determine today because that's what a petit jury does. The will make a decision as to what - if they were being truthful in their responses. Um, it's helpful to me in determining wether or not a PR bond is important for sure. Because, well it is indicia that they might bot have been as forthright a they claimed they were" He apologizes again and at 21:51 she begins to speak again. He interrupts again at 22:18 to make a comment then she begins again at 22:35. She talks about the video of the vehicle and at 23:01 he interrupts to say "I'm not trying that today...." At 23:45 She begins again. She seems to realize the judge isn't going to allow her 'the floor' as he said - so she tries lumping all the points Mr. Truslow made together "Everything presented at the first bond hearing...." - she says she is able to back each thing up....except for one thing - "the deposit slip" -- she says she made everyone aware once they realized it wasn't what they initially thought it was. She goes on to say there has been NO CHANGE in circumstance since the initial bond hearing. At 25:08 the judge inserts he agrees there has been no change. At 25:33 he interrupts to ell her her this bond hearing is ALL about 'risk and flight' - he goes on and slides in another "mistake" made by the prosecution - and that was about the DNA evidence. At 29:48 she is able to begin again.
In my opinion - she then does a very poor job of talking about them and their flight risk. It was poorly worded - and this is why I believe they went into the bond hearing today thinking that the defense was going to have to prove a "change in circumstance" - and did very little to prepare for the 'risk and flight'. Part of why I believe this is because the judge had made it clear this hearing was not all about change in circumstance but yet she kept going back to that even after the judge made it clear by saying "that doesn't matter". (34:16) The judge interrupted again to talk about how bond isn't to keep someone in jail but to ensure the bond is high enough to have them return to court. He ends (37:59) with "Do you have any direct evidence". She says no and moves on to say the victims family would like to speak.
----------- (
http://www.wmbfnews.com/category/235957/wmbf-live) Part two of the video from the hearing is where I got my times - they might not be exact - but are within a second or two -- just wanted to give approx time points.
-----
Is it me or did the judge do some double speak? He says in one breath the information she's presenting is for the jury (like the bond hearing wasn't the time or place) - but then in the last part says it IS important for PR bond - THEN kind of makes it clear he's not interested in hearing it (indicating the only reason she was addressing it was to imply change of circumstance and ignoring that he said there is importance in him knowing these things for a PR bond??
I said it earlier - I believe this judge had his mind made up before anyone spoke what he was going to do - and that just feels wrong. I also found it very interesting that he made the point of bringing up 'another mistake' (for lack of better way to put it) about the DNA. He wasn't letting HER talk about evidence in the case - but yet he brings that up? SMH
