TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #18

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Lavit - "they relied on Vanessa Coleman time and time and time again"

Case "based purely on speculation" - Lavit

 

[MCDRAW]

Lavit says lie that Chris brought in the house.

I wonder how he knows it's a lie. He wasn't there but Cobbins was. He didn't tell them that Chris was brought into the house to convict Vanessa. He said it about himself.

 

[SuziQ]

Now lavit using sexy sounding voice with the jury.....ugh icky poo poo.....

 

[Muffet]

Oh boy, he's using a frog in is throat voice to say how terrible a crime it was and how he feels for the parents.

Hope you have several of those bags now, adnoid.

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Don't know if he's faking but Lavit nearly chokes up over deaths if Channon, Chris

 

[Muffet]

Talking about Criminal responsibility - reading the charge.. says the defendent needed to have intent, solicit, aids...

the person may be found guilty not only of that offense, but others commited around it...

Uh, not sure that was smart for him to remind them of...

 

[lizzybeth]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Don't know if he's faking but Lavit nearly chokes up over deaths if Channon, Chris

He regained his composure pretty quick so I vote for faking it.

 

[PrairieWind]

I wonder how he knows it's a lie. He wasn't there but Cobbins was. He didn't tell them that Chris was brought into the house to convict Vanessa. He said it about himself.

Exactly. cobbins had not reason to lie about that. it actually hurt his case to say that. Besides, where was chris from the time of the carjacking until the worker heard the shots on the street? What time was the carjacking? I cant remember, but the shots were almost 2am. They had him somewhere for a couple hours, and I doubt it was out in the rain.

 

[Muffet]

LOL @ "Sexy."

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Ok now he's just flat choking. Make ur point, Lavit!

 

[Muffet]

He's still going on about criminal responsibility. Reading it aloud, the way he does these things on the fly, as if for the first time, with a bunch of mistakes, i swear, expect him to end up with an, "Oh. OK. That makes sense. She did do that."

 

[Muffet]

He seems to be saying that they can choose to find her not guilty, even if she was criminally responsible. :crazy:

 

[SuziQ]

What the heck is that noise? Is that in my house?

 

[MCDRAW]

Oh boy, he's using a frog in is throat voice to say how terrible a crime it was and how he feels for the parents.

Hope you have several of those bags now, adnoid.

Yes, he felt so bad for their families he had to go tattle on Gary.

 

[steelergirl]

He's still going on about criminal responsibility. Reading it aloud, the way he does these things on the fly, as if for the first time, with a bunch of mistakes, i swear, expect him to end up with an, "Oh. OK. That makes sense. She did do that."

I'm astounded that he isn't more prepared than he is. Referring to court law WHILE giving the closing is hardly professional.

 

[yeknomaras]

This guy just yells, doesn't he? geez

 

[MCDRAW]

Lavit is just arguing the law not Coleman's case...that should tell the jury he has nothing!

 

[Muffet]

See? He's actually saying, "No one is found innocent. Just not guilty. So just because you find them guilty doesn't mean you think they are innocent."

With defense attys like him, who needs prosecutors?

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Lavit - not guilty doesn't mean defendant innocent, just means state fell short (he's giving jury moral out)

 

[PrairieWind]

He seems to be saying that they can choose to find her not guilty, even if she was criminally responsible. :crazy:

Very strange. Saying that they dnt have to find her "innocent". Just not guilty. He seems to be hinting to the jury that she WAS involved. That seems to be a very dangerous tact to take in a closing.