All of you guys are beyond fantastic. The way you keep up with the motions, evidence, trial results, I could go on and on. Big thanks!!
Going into the "code words" or the talk between AW and RN. This reminds me of the Arias case when she wrote a series of numbers for a friend. They ended up being page #'s in a magazine where she wrote one word on each page, close as possible to the binding, which corresponded to the #. The words actually formed a sentence about his recollection of events. To change it, IIRC.
I always try to keep up, but, some of this stuff that goes on makes smoke come outta my ears.
Thanks for that info. I didn't follow that trial closely, so hadn't heard this. It's interesting to know the different tricks some defendants use to control the testimony of witnesses in their favor. In that case, was Airas punished by the judge for doing that? It would be interesting to know how other judges handle these kinds of violations.
On another topic, it seems the forbidden communications amongst the Wagner/Newcomb family defendants and witnesses has led to a hostile rebellious attitude among them in court. From FW's arrogant attacks in the news media to RN's surly attitude in court and the general surliness of the other defendants, they all remain "united" in the belief that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
While FW blames tries to blame the murders on "ISIS", I get the feeling from the other defendants that they believe there's nothing illegal about the things they're accused of. They have complete disrespect for the Judge and prosecutors and seem to still believe they're not accountable to anyone. I'm not hearing much in the way of denials (with a small exception in FW), either.
JMO, that attitude they project isn't far from saying "I did it, I don't care if you think it's illegal and, eventually "The Rhodens deserved to be murdered". Righteous indignation (in their eyes).
It's interesting so far: no outright denials and lots of attitude that the defendants are the ones who have been wronged. A group dynamic among defendants may be more convincing to some jurors than an individual defendant trying to bluster their way to a "not guilty verdict".
Allowing them to continue to have unauthorized communications amongst themselves is only going to strengthen their bad attitudes and combativeness and I don't think that will help the prosecution or judge. To the contrary, it may appeal to some jurors. The court needs to make the W's and RN "toe the line".
They only have to convince 1 juror to vote "not guilty" to be able to walk free.
