Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

I think this impeachment of McCabe is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this impeachment of McCabe is awful.

Do you think the attorney is not doing it well?

[Anonymous]

If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this impeachment of McCabe is awful.

Do you think the attorney is not doing it well?

He's making me sympathetic to her for not recalling exactly how she worded things. She came off evil in documentaries but here she comes off as a normal mom who got caught up in this awful event, not someone who was part of a conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Jackson is a total aggressive and arrogant and hes jen a hard time for no reason. Jen is a cooperative witness whos now been on the 3x 2 trials and one grand jury. His demeanor is going to backfire on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

+1

Because even if you think ahead and write the details down, then a defense will make you seem like a suspect.

[Anonymous]

Defense atty looks petty, without having actual proof his client didn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this impeachment of McCabe is awful.

Do you think the attorney is not doing it well?

He's making me sympathetic to her for not recalling exactly how she worded things. She came off evil in documentaries but here she comes off as a normal mom who got caught up in this awful event, not someone who was part of a conspiracy.

Some of it is not wording, it’s about making a statement that is different than was made before. You want your witness to be consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

+1

Because even if you think ahead and write the details down, then a defense will make you seem like a suspect.

Yeah, they questioned her extensively on whether she prepared for her testimony making it sound suspicious, but then if she doesn't phrase things the same, that's also suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

+1

Because even if you think ahead and write the details down, then a defense will make you seem like a suspect.

Yeah, they questioned her extensively on whether she prepared for her testimony making it sound suspicious, but then if she doesn't phrase things the same, that's also suspicious.

She needs to recount the same information, even with different words. It’s important to note when the client is stating something different from what was previously stated under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

+1

Because even if you think ahead and write the details down, then a defense will make you seem like a suspect.

Yeah, they questioned her extensively on whether she prepared for her testimony making it sound suspicious, but then if she doesn't phrase things the same, that's also suspicious.

She needs to recount the same information, even with different words. It’s important to note when the client is stating something different from what was previously stated under oath.

I understand that. I'm just not finding this compelling if I were a juror. He's asking about a lot more than the relevant question "I hit him!" vs "Did I hit him?" to impeach her like she's lying about everything, and it's having the opposite effect on me, making me believe she's generally truthful. Do you find this cross effective?

[Anonymous]

The defense is???? Nothing just yelling at the helpful witnesses no proof of anything! Another crap day for the defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defense atty looks petty, without having actual proof his client didn't do it.

+10000 I'm embarrassed for them. they have nothing plus he keeps saying things hes not supposed to say instead of asking questions and the ineffective judge its letting him get away with this time and time again this has to be swaying the jury. They really should have had a different judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I ever witness anything, I’m going to “not remember” anything and be a terrible witness. It’s not worth what they are put through.

+1

Because even if you think ahead and write the details down, then a defense will make you seem like a suspect.

Yeah, they questioned her extensively on whether she prepared for her testimony making it sound suspicious, but then if she doesn't phrase things the same, that's also suspicious.

She needs to recount the same information, even with different words. It’s important to note when the client is stating something different from what was previously stated under oath.

I understand that. I'm just not finding this compelling if I were a juror. He's asking about a lot more than the relevant question "I hit him!" vs "Did I hit him?" to impeach her like she's lying about everything, and it's having the opposite effect on me, making me believe she's generally truthful. Do you find this cross effective?

NP I did not find it effective because the important point was getting lost and unclear and he was badgering without getting much out of her. It’s very obviously crucial to not claim an accused person said “I hit him I hit him I hit him” if you have any doubt about her saying it or not. So how can she be so sure now, but was not at first? Would the cop not include something this crucial in the report? That is doubtful, but making that point by asking the cop would be better. My impression is she is either lying or made false distorted memories which is very common when recalling events too many times.

[Anonymous]

I thought the judge was considered biased for the prosecutor?