Thanks I must have missed her
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
They just said the niece's name. I didn't think they were supposed to do that.
I just turned on Emily, and she mentioned that the niece's name was already out there in the last trial.
This is probably the closest to what happened.
Occams Razor definitely comes into play and the shortest amount of assumptions is more than likely the truth.
It’s similar in a sense to the Lucy Letby case - either *everyone* else is lying, or one person is.
I would love to be a fly on the wall for some of these witnesses. Brennan telling them to make sure you don't refer to Proctor as the lead investigator and them saying "yeah, no, that's not happening." I feel like Brennan should have just conceded this point. Was it really worth it to fight so hard?
After working in the NHS from 1991 onwards, you'd be surprised at how many surgeon's have been close to manslaughter charges and have got away with it because the NHS trust backed them up
But did they collude with multiple other people to pin the blame on someone else? Or just ‘get away with it’?After working in the NHS from 1991 onwards, you'd be surprised at how many surgeon's have been close to manslaughter charges and have got away with it because the NHS trust backed them up
I’m inclined to go with the judicial system that handed what, 15 whole life orders to her. If they end up overturned in my lifetime then I will come back and eat my words
??? Rule 14 violation by the Commonwealth- Alessi has been losing his tit! Aperture (not testified yet - they’re the car computer experts) are trying to align the timeline with Ian Whiffin’s timeline from week one of the retrial - and have only provided this to the defence within the last week or so…
It’s because the current timeline breaks their case so it needs to be realigned to fit Whiffin… if the shoe were on the other foot this would be an instant no.
Hank screwed himself over today when he asked about “I hit him” and the ME said she knew but still didn’t say he was hit by a car.
Hank screwed himself over today when he asked about “I hit him” and the ME said she knew but still didn’t say he was hit by a car.
ARCCA also gave new information at a very late stage.
Judge Cannone asked them to have the report in for the 7th of May, everyone agreed to that, the report is in and now Hank is complaining about it.
Difference between providing information in an agreed timeline and completely changing the timeline of your case because you’re losing
Difference between providing information in an agreed timeline and completely changing the timeline of your case because you’re losing
But it wasn’t agreed, judge cannone asked him on the stand will you have it ready by then and he said if you order me to, I will. They’re both playing dirty games as I guess that’s what happens in these cases, but I don’t think it’s because one side is ‘losing’. The prosecution have got a much stronger position this time around.
Wow, what a crazy day!
Which it was ordered and turned in - Hank said they got it on the 7th but hadn’t reviewed it yet which sounds like a him problem.
Prosecution started off on a stronger foot with those clips but as it goes on they become more and more out of context and the medical examiner just destroyed his entire case by saying John wasn’t hit by a car. There’s no coming back from that.
Did you see Hank slam down his laptop at the end of the day yesterday 
. He knows the commonwealth are failing miserably and he was so rude with his own witness. I don’t understand how anyone can think she’s guilty of this crime.
. He knows the commonwealth are failing miserably and he was so rude with his own witness. I don’t understand how anyone can think she’s guilty of this crime.I don’t understand how anyone can think she’s innocent and such is lifeDid you see Hank slam down his laptop at the end of the day yesterday
The fact that they called that ME makes me think that they'll call Proctor!! How did Hank Brennan think it was going to go, was he expecting her to lie or something?! Good for her for maintaining her integrity.Did you see Hank slam down his laptop at the end of the day yesterday
"Undetermined death""No Evidence of Impact Injury observed on JO" AND she admitted she knew about the "I hit him" comments and still couldn't make that conclusion. Crazy
She said she clipped him: They'd been drinking remember, maybe the contact was mild enough just to make him lose balance, and it was falling backwards and hitting his head that did the damage, that and the hypothermia. Who knows that John was standing up anyway, he could have been tying a shoelace (or bending down getting a stone out of his trainer, hence having that trainer off), picking up something he'd dropped, lord only knows.
She obviously knows she was instrumental in his death because why else would she say she clipped him (those words came out of her own mouth, hers and hers alone), why, when this attractive man she'd been arguing with didn't come home, did she immediately assume he was dead (a massive assumption) and not either still out drinking or in bed with a woman? How come she went straight to the flagpole and said that that was where she'd expected to find him?
If a partner fails to come home, most of us would simmer with fury and wait to have it out in the morning or whenever they turned up, not be ringing round in a panic in the middle of the night, assuming our partner was dead. That's one hellova stretch. It's bizarre behaviour and reeks of guilt.
The ME testified that she did not see injuries on his legs consistent with a vehicle strike. She acknowledged on direct that when she discussed vehicle strikes its under the assumption of most vehicle strikes being head on. Brennan asked if it was consistent with being 'clipped' and defence objected.
What was Hank thinking yesterday? His own expert practically testified for the defence and then his redirect made it a hundred times worse!
Did anyone watch the Lori Daybell pre trial motions on Wednesday? That was utterly delicious, Judge Berensky has the patience of an actual saint with that woman. Would like to dip into the Idaho trial too but I won’t have time for all of this, my work colleagues think I’m nuts but I’d love to have someone to talk to in real time, this is all way better than Eastenders or Stacey and Joe.
Back to Karen Read, I think if they’d gone with manslaughter they might have had a chance, but after yesterday they’ve got no hope in hell in proving murder beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the crux of it, we can all surmise, guess, try and work out what could have happened but they have to prove she did it and so far they haven’t. There’s at too much to evidence showing how botched the investigation was and how they jumped to a conclusion and then were just lazy.
Did anyone watch the Lori Daybell pre trial motions on Wednesday? That was utterly delicious, Judge Berensky has the patience of an actual saint with that woman. Would like to dip into the Idaho trial too but I won’t have time for all of this, my work colleagues think I’m nuts but I’d love to have someone to talk to in real time, this is all way better than Eastenders or Stacey and Joe.
Back to Karen Read, I think if they’d gone with manslaughter they might have had a chance, but after yesterday they’ve got no hope in hell in proving murder beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the crux of it, we can all surmise, guess, try and work out what could have happened but they have to prove she did it and so far they haven’t. There’s at too much to evidence showing how botched the investigation was and how they jumped to a conclusion and then were just lazy.
- Status