Oh okay and 2 more today so today should be it then?Supposed to be 8 total
Oh okay and 2 more today so today should be it then?Supposed to be 8 total
YesDid judge say he needed to address matters related to jury sequestation outside of the public during this?
Eta: He did. Huh.
That’s usually during the DP phase. If Chad is found guilty, then the punishment trial phase begins. That’s when they are sequestered.Did judge say he needed to address matters related to jury sequestation outside of the public during this?
Eta: He did. Huh.
Yes, JP tried to shame the neighbor for being cooperative with LE. Good for the neighbor. She was willing to wear a wire.I don't know what the defense was trying to gain by this witness. Did he want to show that she was working for the state or trying to create something for them?
She seems genuine in that she heard something and reported something to the police. Also seems a genuine concern for finding the kids.
JP also called Garth's attorney from GJ proceedings.Where does the count of 8 defense witnesses come from? Was it from JP’s opening statement? As I recall he mentioned experts and Daybell children. 4 experts - DNA, forensic pathologist, data examiner, & forensic anthropologist and the uncertain # of Daybell children - “4 of the 5 children…3 or 4 of the 5 children”. So if 4 children and 4 experts then 8 or if 4 experts and 3 children and one son-in-law then 8. JP did not say he was calling the neighbor so I don’t think that counts in the 8. I think he has 3 more experts remaining and may or may not call the 3rd Daybell sibling.
Either I missed someone or JP has only called 5 witnesses - 1) EDM 2) GD 3) JM 4) forensic pathologist/Dr Raven 5) neighbor/Reagen. I see someone said 6 earlier so if I’ve forgotten someone, please let me know.
I know they said 2 more today - I’m guessing that’s 2 more of the 4 experts which leaves one and if the 8 witnesses is accurate then that would leave the 4th expert for tomorrow and be JP’s final witness. But if the total of 8 witnesses was from his opening then it did not count the neighbor and there may be one more - which may or may not be a 3rd Daybell sibling.
But if the total of 8 witnesses came from JP’s opening then it may be a mistake to conclude that 8 was ever intended to be his final number of witnesses and he could have others lined up. I didn’t take his reference to the experts and the Daybell children to be an exhaustive list of all of his witnesses when he did his opening and I think the neighbor being called and not being mentioned in the opening confirms that.
So can anyone tell me if there is another source of the statements that he will have 8 witnesses total? We know the witness lists are sealed but was the number of witnesses ever officially released? Or are those who are saying it is 8, just speculating based on JP’s opening including perhaps members of the media who might have repeated that number. But does anyone actually know and if so how do they know?
How on earth does the LDS Church deal with the negative impact these horrendous events have on their teachings? Don’t live in USA so very curious how it’s all being handled from their perspective?
The "no true Scottsman" argument. They'll argue that the extremists aren't REALLY faithful LDSJust carry on. Every religion has extremists. LDS people shrug them off, because the fringe cultists are not really "LDS".
Thank you - I suspected I’d forgotten someone but couldn’t think of who it could be. I guess I wasn’t that impressed by his contribution to the trialJP also called Garth's attorney from GJ proceedings.
Oh, of course the bruises were not attributed to someone grasping or manhandling Tammy. Natch. They were caused by blunt force. Go back to Cali.
Thanks!That’s usually during the DP phase. If Chad is found guilty, then the punishment trial phase begins. That’s when they are sequestered.
Basically this.Just carry on. Every religion has extremists. LDS people shrug them off, because the fringe cultists are not really "LDS".
Well, Prior confirmed my bias-Re confirmation bias....JP asked if by looking at so many reports, the coroner committed confirmation bias.
Looking at lots of information and taking it all into consideration is the opposite of confirmation bias. Looking at only a few targeted reports, selected by only the defense, is an example of very possible confirmation bias. In any case you can't say that someone fell for confirmation bias without knowing if they discarded or ignored info that didn't fit their 'theory'.
My best guess is she was supposed to show that the police were against Chad and trying to get people to wear wires.I think I missed the entire purpose of that witness and I couldn't understand the audio. Someone help me understand please
You should only trust the murderer.Well, Prior confirmed my bias-
It was a murder, and you can't trust the reports that were by people not present for the murder!
MOO
Well, Ian was a police informant for a short while. I don't see anyone having a problem with him, apart from Chad.My best guess is she was supposed to show that the police were against Chad and trying to get people to wear wires.
MOO