- Joined
- Sep 10, 2020
- Messages
- 33,925
- Reaction score
- 28,988
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In post #2123, I disproved the assertion of your post that is in red.
In this post, I will address the rest. First of all, this isn't a first trial thread. This is a second trial thread. The people that want to be are well acquainted with the vast assortment of evidence. Second, of course I started with the presumption of her innocence. That is the law the jury will be following, and that is how you arrive at correct conclusions. By not making assumptions without all the information. So yes, I was pro innocent before the first trial. Of course.
On top of that presumption, as information was coming out, it became apparent that the FBI had investigated the investigation. They had hired some of the best accident reconstructionists, ARCCA. They made their findings of no collision, before the first trial, before they knew anybody in the case. The lead investigator also was shown to have an extreme bias very early on after only talking to Jennifer and Matthew McCabe, and Brian Albert. They gave those findings to the prosecution. The prosecution was asked by the judge if those findings contained any exculpatory evidence, and they said that it did not. That's including all the Proctor texts. So that was a lie to the court, of course it was all exculpatory. It was clearly some shady shit. Should never have gone to trial the first time.
The more we learned, the more this was backed up. The more the Commonwealth witnesses testified, the more their stories changed. They never got more convincing.
Now how did you arrive at your conclusion?
So you not only made up your mind when 50% of the evidence had been presented, you were only looking at 25% to come to that guilty judgement. To me, that seems a terrible method to arrive at the truth. Unless you want to tell me you did watch all of Jackson's and Yanetti's and Alessi's crosses?
Which is maybe why last trial you were making desperate excuses for the prosecution like maybe the plow threw him into the yard, as well as your usual continued tactics of ad homming all the attorneys, Read, and anyone defending her. I could cite hundreds of such in this and the other thread probably, but anyone reading this post still will already be well familiar with them. And lastly, there's your refusal to address any of the "rabbit hole" of exculpatory evidence that proves her actual innocence, that I've nicely summarized for you across several posts but which you continue to not address. Yet I bring evidence to refute every one of your claims.
That's not even addressing the prosecutorial misconduct occuring constantly during both trials, and the judge's absolute refusal to sanction them or punish them at all, while having harsh words for the defense over the slightest nothing, and the numerous terrible and atrocious rulings that will lead to reversible errors on appeal if somehow the jury is compromised into a guilty verdict beyond OUI.
In this post, I will address the rest. First of all, this isn't a first trial thread. This is a second trial thread. The people that want to be are well acquainted with the vast assortment of evidence. Second, of course I started with the presumption of her innocence. That is the law the jury will be following, and that is how you arrive at correct conclusions. By not making assumptions without all the information. So yes, I was pro innocent before the first trial. Of course.
On top of that presumption, as information was coming out, it became apparent that the FBI had investigated the investigation. They had hired some of the best accident reconstructionists, ARCCA. They made their findings of no collision, before the first trial, before they knew anybody in the case. The lead investigator also was shown to have an extreme bias very early on after only talking to Jennifer and Matthew McCabe, and Brian Albert. They gave those findings to the prosecution. The prosecution was asked by the judge if those findings contained any exculpatory evidence, and they said that it did not. That's including all the Proctor texts. So that was a lie to the court, of course it was all exculpatory. It was clearly some shady shit. Should never have gone to trial the first time.
The more we learned, the more this was backed up. The more the Commonwealth witnesses testified, the more their stories changed. They never got more convincing.
Now how did you arrive at your conclusion?
So that means you made up your mind at the conclusion of the prosecution's case that she was guilty. But we also know you don't watch the defense lawyers when they're cross examining Commonwealth witnesses, because you've said you think they're slimy scum from the start.
So you not only made up your mind when 50% of the evidence had been presented, you were only looking at 25% to come to that guilty judgement. To me, that seems a terrible method to arrive at the truth. Unless you want to tell me you did watch all of Jackson's and Yanetti's and Alessi's crosses?
Which is maybe why last trial you were making desperate excuses for the prosecution like maybe the plow threw him into the yard, as well as your usual continued tactics of ad homming all the attorneys, Read, and anyone defending her. I could cite hundreds of such in this and the other thread probably, but anyone reading this post still will already be well familiar with them. And lastly, there's your refusal to address any of the "rabbit hole" of exculpatory evidence that proves her actual innocence, that I've nicely summarized for you across several posts but which you continue to not address. Yet I bring evidence to refute every one of your claims.
That's not even addressing the prosecutorial misconduct occuring constantly during both trials, and the judge's absolute refusal to sanction them or punish them at all, while having harsh words for the defense over the slightest nothing, and the numerous terrible and atrocious rulings that will lead to reversible errors on appeal if somehow the jury is compromised into a guilty verdict beyond OUI.
