Discussion in 'Trials' started by KayElJay, Nov 15, 2019.
It’s a rare Perry Mason moment almost.
This kind of thing almost never happens.
The John Doe's pending testimony in Weld County re: another solicitation is on behalf of the DEFENDANT in that case, not for the prosecution, so he's not chalking up any good will points with the state for testifying in that unrelated case.
“There is something about the whole plot that, for me, reeks of female scheming.
That statement (let alone the thought) needs serious introspective contemplation.
What exactly would qualify for male scheming?...writing death threat hits on jailhouse paper towels ?
I don’t know. Somehow he had to communicate with her about what had to be done and how to help. Jail calls or notes to her will undoubtedly come up.
Because the dude was bonded out. How would she know to do that and why would she?
Or maybe telling the woman who thinks she’s your fiancé that you’re coming over to enjoy a nice holiday together, but then you lure her into the ruse of a blindfolded, candle-sniffing game. And then you batter up. Or should I say batterer up.
Yup. Hearsay (because their angle should be we don’t know who wrote them so it’s not an admission by a party opponent), lack of foundation/authentication, lay (improper) opinion (as to Slater’s testimony that the letters matched PF’s handwriting. Because he’s not a handwriting expert).
If these objections weren’t made before the jury it’s because they knew the letters were PF’s and didn’t want the jury to see how hard they wanted to keep them out.
And not even any cross: “You don’t have a degree in handwriting analysis, true?”
Nothing. There’s a reason for that and it’s not to set up a defense for appeal. You make a record for appeal with valid objections. Unless you know that those objections aren’t valid and would cause more issues than not.
He is a 'special' kind of special.
That is awesome!!
Phew, finally caught up. This thread goes 24hrs!
I think it's clear that PF has a lock on the Dumbest Murderer Of The Year Award. What a sick individual. Moo.
I reread SF2's testimony as a brother and witness at his family's Thanksgiving and don't understand what he could have "traded" with the DA to leave SF out of the trial.
Questions were asked and answered and he didn't tell the DA what to ask him. I believe SF2 simply told the truth to the best of his recollection.
I don't think SF was called to testify because her attorney told the court at the preliminary she would assert her 5th Amendment to any questions, and the prosecution was able to answer their questions (i.e., the fire and PF's arrival time on Thanksgiving) without her. I don't think it had anything to do with SF2-- his life difficult enough as it is serving in the same District. MOO
"Why would she?" Well there's 100 Septillion reasons, plus Kenny testifying SF saw the bonfire, CB Testifying SF refered to Kelsey as a hooker. Jail calls are recorded. My guess is they talked about 'elk hunting' in one of these calls.
To take it a step further: Did he think it through beyond that?
The trial comes and suddenly not ONE of the witnesses is anywhere to be found.
Did he really think no one would look into it, and that would be it - as if the judge would say "Oh my, none of the witnesses showed up. You can all go home now!"
Truly amazing thought distortion by PF.
EDIT: To point out that @MassGuy and @makayla made similar posts earlier in the thread, pointing out how far PF was from reality!
Ah, good post. I for one had wondered if the defense was just throwing in the towel with the new evidence, thinking the best thing they could do for their client at this point is to let the appeal team take it on. But you make good points.
Is it possible that in the closed door sessions, the defense filed motions that the judge denied? Or did they gather in chambers and argue it out without the formality of motions? Just wondering if there will be a paper trail that we can read when this is all said and done.
I wonder if a lawyer could weigh in here. (@gitana1 ?)
Is it possible they left SF out of the trial so that PF's murder case (the most important) could go on without any hangups, and not showing their hand beforehand, while fully intending to go after her later? Is there a time limit on that?
or “bless hi heart”
It’s a southern thing reserved for idiots
Do we know if Jacob Bentley is or is not a pseudo name to protect the witness? The witness was identified by his full name in a public courtroom and via MSM, most of who are still using his full name.
It was a nice request by the DA after the fact, but there is no judicial order in place in that respect.
Let's wait and see if anything more comes of it.
ETA: To save some work for the WS staff ... from this point forward, let's refer to him as JB John Doe so that if we have the time to go back and redact the full name, it will only have to be up to this point.
PF: The sky is the limit!
PF: Within reason.
PF: Well, exactly.
Although I would not be surprised if during the civil suit, we learned that the baby did have a cash value to him in some way. Through his father's estate or through KB.
There's no expiration date for discovery during a trial and the court is accustomed to handling last-minute evidence.
The trial was far ahead of schedule and if PF's defense wanted to challenge the validity of the evidence then I'm sure the DA would have requested handwriting analysis and the court would have agreed. There was no challenge and no analysis necessary. Simply, the defense accepted PF authored the notes. MOO