Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's move on... witness doesn't recall anything. moo
I noticed that since day 1 of trial.I've defended this judge before, but there's something I really dislike about the way she handles objections.
When Lally objects, she will say "sustained" but never "overruled". Instead she says "I'll allow this" or "I'll let him have this one." As if she's doing the defense a favor.
No. mooDo you believe Julie Albert when she says she doesn't remember anything about her 10-20 minute long calls with Elizabeth Proctor?
Agreed.This has got to be one of the most memorable things that's occurred in the town of Canton. It directly affects her family, and in fact her son was at the location. She's speaking to the spouse of the lead investigator. The calls are right before and after KR makes news.
Yes, selective memory. mooIMO, it's really not credible that they could have been talking about any old subject and their conversations were so unmemorable that she has no recollection. (Especially since she seems to have good memory about other events that occurred two years ago, like speaking with Karen at the bar or the time that her son came home.)
Wow! That is seriously impressive @SleuthieGoosie!I missed this.
Has anyone seen the detailed time log that @SleuthieGoosie has posted? She has linked sources for each incident and the time it occurred.
It's not necessary to have an account to view the posted document, thankfully.
this is not unusual. court is not like TV - where the lawyer always cites the reason for obvious objections.I've defended this judge before, but there's something I really dislike about the way she handles objections.
When Lally objects, she will say "sustained" but never "overruled". Instead she says "I'll allow this" or "I'll let him have this one." As if she's doing the defense a favor.
In this document you can see the JO's health data from his phone. It indicates his movements, and includes ascending stairs.I don’t recall this having been entered into evidence. Can you provide a time stamp?
I agree. The judge is repeatedly insinuating that the defense is barely getting by with what is allowed in court. While the same judge is prodding the prosecutor to do his job with multiple reminders.I've defended this judge before, but there's something I really dislike about the way she handles objections.
When Lally objects, she will say "sustained" but never "overruled". Instead she says "I'll allow this" or "I'll let him have this one." As if she's doing the defense a favor.
that is a very interesting thing to look atI missed this.
Has anyone seen the detailed time log that @SleuthieGoosie has posted? She has linked sources for each incident and the time it occurred.
It's not necessary to have an account to view the posted document, thankfully.
I don't recall her ever saying "I'll let him have this one" when the defense objects to Lally's question.I noticed that since day 1 of trial.
The "I’ll allow this" doesn’t bother me much, but the “I’ll let him have this one" is a poor choice of words, imo.
Is it judge’s style? Is this how it is in her courtroom?
Anyway, she is the judge.
moo
No, this judge has specifically ruled that grounds are not to be stated in open court. That is solely her decision.this is not unusual. court is not like TV - where the lawyer always cites the reason for obvious objections.
ex. they don't need to say "objection, hearsay!" each time they are obviously objecting to hearsay. if the judge doesn't understand the objection... the judge will ask "on what grounds?"