OJ Simpson.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
T
The commonwealth could have video evidence of her doing it and the Karen stans would find some way to try and discredit it
On Court TV one of the defence lawyers said "If you can't attack the evidence, you attack the witness", and a while ago, another of them had said "If you can't argue the evidence and you can't argue the law, just argue." Alessi is giving a masterclass. He's good, he's very, very good.
No, I would not be hysterical and nor would most people. As an ex-first responder I can tell you that faced with a dire situation most people become very calm and very focussed, if they're sober that is, drunks are another matter!
Will you stop using common sense, you know that doesn’t count when it’s a privileged white woman you’re talking about!
Surely if it goes to another mistrial they won’t try and prosecute for a third time? At some point it has to be done with.I hope not, I hope it will be an acquittal
I am nearly sure I read somewhere that the prosecution will fund another mistrial but that would be the final one. I wouldn’t be surprised if after yesterday Hank looked for a mistrial. There is no hope in hell that 12 people on the jury could possibly find her guilty with what they have heard from the commonwealth so far. I’m looking forward to the defence bringing their case.
I wonder what the defence think they can bring to the table. The car data of when she was driving and where she went is damning enough, let alone the damage to her car and of course her hysterical confessions.
I’ve asked and asked for an alternative timeline that could show *any* other scenario would be realistic, but it just isn’t forthcoming? It’s almost like…. There isn’t one?
I’ve asked and asked for an alternative timeline that could show *any* other scenario would be realistic, but it just isn’t forthcoming? It’s almost like…. There isn’t one?
I took part in a mock cross-examination for my degree and our lecturer went hard on us to emphasis how necessary it is for expert witness to be clear in their evidence and testimonies, because defence lawyers will go for any tiny inconsistency to try to damage your credibility.
Having to admit to cut and pasting and errors like 'bits vs bytes' reminds me of the kind of things we were pulled apart for as students, I'd expect someone who has been an expert witness for as long as Burgess has (was it 10 years?) to not be making those kinds of mistakes!
If Morrissey is still the DA they’ll probably go again. It’s interesting that he had to hire a criminal defence attorney as a special prosecutor when there are so many ADAs in that office… almost like no one wanted to try the case
What do you think is the reason the defence went for Alessi? He’s not a criminal attorney.If Morrissey is still the DA they’ll probably go again. It’s interesting that he had to hire a criminal defence attorney as a special prosecutor when there are so many ADAs in that office… almost like no one wanted to try the case
So this might not match up with any of the data, but bear with me
The most realistic scenario for me would be Karen reversing at speed, hits John with her car, but doesn't cause injuries and he drops his phone. He goes into 34 Fairview but leaves at some point to try to find his phone, slips, cracks his head and dies. Everyone in 34 Fairview is too drunk to remember or care that he doesn't come back.
In the morning when John is found, someone mentions the case against those two guys in Kansas City who are being charged with involuntary manslaughter after their friends died in the backyard (https://people.com/all-about-deaths-of-3-men-found-in-friends-backyard-11692127), so they try to manipulate the investigation to ensure the only person who is blamed is Karen.
Edit: I forgot how long ago everything happened! That case I mentioned happened after John's death. But I guess my point still stands, they didn't want to be blamed for his death. Maybe John told someone at 34 Fairview that Karen hit him with her car, so they doctor evidence for more proof.
The scratches on his arm could have come from a scavenging animal (not necessarily a dog
). But I doubt we'll ever know what really happened, I think Karen was probably too drunk herself to remember for sure.
Last edited:
I wonder if Alessi's science background played into the decision.
I'm a retired RGN (UK) - when my daughter fell downstairs at the age of 7, she sustained a broken radius and ulna......Instead of just driving her to the hospital, I panicked and rang 999. My mind went completely blank and I forgot how to do anything....
Court tv :
Attachments
Pretty much what a deadlocked jury looks likeNot another day of you lot having the same argument hahaha. Is this what it's like being in the Jury room?!
That still involves everyone lying, and somehow managing to firstly, concoct a plan of cover up in that short space of time, including outsiders to help with planting pieces of taillight etc.So this might not match up with any of the data, but bear with me
The most realistic scenario for me would be Karen reversing at speed, hits John with her car, but doesn't cause injuries and he drops his phone. He goes into 34 Fairview but leaves at some point to try to find his phone, slips, cracks his head and dies. Everyone in 34 Fairview is too drunk to remember or care that he doesn't come back.
In the morning when John is found, someone mentions the case against those two guys in Kansas City who are being charged with involuntary manslaughter after their friends died in the backyard (https://people.com/all-about-deaths-of-3-men-found-in-friends-backyard-11692127), so they try to manipulate the investigation to ensure the only person who is blamed is Karen.
Edit: I forgot how long ago everything happened! That case I mentioned happened after John's death. But I guess my point still stands, they didn't want to be blamed for his death. Maybe John told someone at 34 Fairview that Karen hit him with her car, so they doctor evidence for more proof.
The scratches on his arm could have come from a scavenging animal (not necessarily a dog
But I doubt we'll ever know what really happened, I think Karen was probably too drunk herself to remember for sure.
He was meant to have been around in the background for trial one then came on board pro bono for the second trial. He’s got a scientific background and he’s also a pharmacist.
I’m not sure that timeline is totally accurate. Karen didn’t connect to Johns WiFi until 12.46 wasn’t it?
If I remember correctly, Jen McCabe was harangued into testifying that each time she had text she had looked out of the window. She didn’t seem to be remembering that succinctly but the defence pressed her on it numerous times, probably to help their timeline
Ah yes I can see why a pharmacist would be useful in a murder trial! Isn’t his specialism something like civil environmental law. Almost like they couldn’t find anyone else to defend the case.
- Status