nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
discuss the case thru the weekend here.
This has been probably answered before, but what exactly happens if there is another mistrial? Does the state just continue to have the option to retry him as long as there is no verdict?
Regarding the accident, a co-worker testiied that Michelle wanted her skin lotion, removed her seatbelt and was reaching back to get lotion. I don't recall any testimony where it was said that Jason asked Michelle to take off her seatbelt and do something in the back of the vehicle.
I'd give my eye teeth for a receipt or some sort of evidence revealing that Jason purchased or otherwise obtained of a pair of size 10 Franklins. I personally don't need that evidence, but I think many need extra assistance in connecting so many dots. I can hear it now "but there was another shoe print at the scene!"
Of all the things you can say about Jason, unfortunately, the one thing you can't say is that he's stupid. This crime contains the nth degree of premeditation, IMO (which makes it so especially horrendous). Someone who is planning a murder can and would use a decoy tactic.
It scares me that some won't be able to understand how another set of show prints could be found, and why there is not more evidence "putting him at the scene." But, duh, he planned this, and had plenty of time to figure out how to prevent leaving evidence (or leave planted evidence pointing to a difference perp, a random guy who wears size 10).
I hope Becky can tie all these circumstances together with a nice bow on top for these jurors. She's a smart woman, but her style is boring. With this prosecution team, there is no drama, no gut punches. You need a nudge and a shot of espresso to snap to and get the significance of the points being made. This is a wet noodle prosecution, and I hope the gazillion circumstances can speak for themselves, since the prosecution style is so weak.
I have question; during the first trial, which I followed closely, I was surprised at how unprepared the prosecution team was for JY testimony. If it was unexpected for the prosecution, at that moment, could they not petition the court for a recess in order to have time to collect their thoughts? I know the judge wanted to keep the session rolling but I would have thought that the prosecution would have done something to prepare for this possible circumstance.
It was shocking, wasn't it? Didn't the pros had overnight to gather their thoughts, or was it just the lunch break? But there is really no excuse for their lack of preparation. That was very unfortunate.
I'd give my eye teeth for a receipt or some sort of evidence revealing that Jason purchased or otherwise obtained of a pair of size 10 Franklins. I personally don't need that evidence, but I think many need extra assistance in connecting so many dots. I can hear it now "but there was another shoe print at the scene!"
Of all the things you can say about Jason, unfortunately, the one thing you can't say is that he's stupid. This crime contains the nth degree of premeditation, IMO (which makes it so especially horrendous). Someone who is planning a murder can and would use a decoy tactic.
It scares me that some won't be able to understand how another set of show prints could be found, and why there is not more evidence "putting him at the scene." But, duh, he planned this, and had plenty of time to figure out how to prevent leaving evidence (or leave planted evidence pointing to a difference perp, a random guy who wears size 10).
I hope Becky can tie all these circumstances together with a nice bow on top for these jurors. She's a smart woman, but her style is boring. With this prosecution team, there is no drama, no gut punches. You need a nudge and a shot of espresso to snap to and get the significance of the points being made. This is a wet noodle prosecution, and I hope the gazillion circumstances can speak for themselves, since the prosecution style is so weak.
And why were there only signs of both of these different size footprints only in the bedroom. Did these *two* strangers up and fly out of the house after the crime? Why would a couple of strangers take off their shoes, and clean themselves up enough to not leave any trace of blood in the exits except for that tiny amount of blood on the doorknob downstairs, exiting the residence.