Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think it’s effective because the statements being asked about are very different. She is claiming to be very certain about statements she is making now about what she heard three years ago, yet she made different statements about what she heard when she was interviewed at the time and at hearings that were held within months of the events.

I got that but it fell flat to me and too confusing. I think the timeline is more interesting as well as the whereabouts of that whole drunken crew right around the time of the murder. These are not just people who may or may not have heard things, they may have been involved in some way.

It is interesting, though, that the witness recounted the defendant’s statements one way when she was asked three years ago, but a different way today. That would be meaningful to me as a juror.

He should have been concise and honed in on one or two main points. It came off as droning I think, and the point was lost. Maybe it is different for the jury since they're listening more attentively than I am lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think it’s effective because the statements being asked about are very different. She is claiming to be very certain about statements she is making now about what she heard three years ago, yet she made different statements about what she heard when she was interviewed at the time and at hearings that were held within months of the events.

I got that but it fell flat to me and too confusing. I think the timeline is more interesting as well as the whereabouts of that whole drunken crew right around the time of the murder. These are not just people who may or may not have heard things, they may have been involved in some way.

It is interesting, though, that the witness recounted the defendant’s statements one way when she was asked three years ago, but a different way today. That would be meaningful to me as a juror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think it’s effective because the statements being asked about are very different. She is claiming to be very certain about statements she is making now about what she heard three years ago, yet she made different statements about what she heard when she was interviewed at the time and at hearings that were held within months of the events.

I got that but it fell flat to me and too confusing. I think the timeline is more interesting as well as the whereabouts of that whole drunken crew right around the time of the murder. These are not just people who may or may not have heard things, they may have been involved in some way.

It is interesting, though, that the witness recounted the defendant’s statements one way when she was asked three years ago, but a different way today. That would be meaningful to me as a juror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the judge was considered biased for the prosecutor?

Lol lol 😂 no! She didn't allow the parents on the stand for the 3 karen phone calls in the middle of the night!!! That seriously points to her obvious guilt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think it’s effective because the statements being asked about are very different. She is claiming to be very certain about statements she is making now about what she heard three years ago, yet she made different statements about what she heard when she was interviewed at the time and at hearings that were held within months of the events.

I got that but it fell flat to me and too confusing. I think the timeline is more interesting as well as the whereabouts of that whole drunken crew right around the time of the murder. These are not just people who may or may not have heard things, they may have been involved in some way.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the judge was considered biased for the prosecutor?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think it’s effective because the statements being asked about are very different. She is claiming to be very certain about statements she is making now about what she heard three years ago, yet she made different statements about what she heard when she was interviewed at the time and at hearings that were held within months of the events.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be a slam dunk for the defense. They exposed that one of the key prosecution witnesses lied to the grand jury. The statie who was fired was the chief investigator. The FEDS seem fairly confident that she didn't do it. The made for tv movies are going to be insane here.

I think it deserves an actual high quality movie, with Affleck and Damon obviously but not sure who can play Karen Read.

Someone cute, petite and sexy.

Kristen Bell