I mean, the man somehow believes that the FBI’s investigation is based only on info fed to them by the defense. This is beyond cognitive dissonance. There’s no fixing stupid.
“You’re not done yet” I think.
It doesn't look like Paul and his mom are that close even now. The day of the voir dires it was just him and his mom from their family in court and they still sat at opposite ends of their row.
I hadn’t heard this and I’m super curious about it! I get that it’s sealed but is there reporting about it anywhere that mentions it? I’d love to read up on whatever is out there, if anything.
This lady explains exactly how it was flipped. https://x.com/AbbyElizabt/status/1807838776343121987
Law & Crime verdict notification account on Twitter. Follow it and turn notifications on. They only tweet when there’s a verdict (not what the verdict is).
That’s a smoke alarm. But some courthouses do have a light like that!
1/16 of an inch is not microscopic. You don't need a microscope to see that.
Not quite personal issues, just "personal to that juror." That could mean anything, she just can't let the rest of the jurors think that anything untoward happened.
This is exactly where I am. Went into it thinking sure, everyone says they were framed for something. Within about a day I was already thinking shit, there might actually be a cover up and framing here.
I don't disagree with you at all. I said they *could* decide she was drunk. They could also absolutely decide the CW didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only charge I can see taking any time to decide is the DUI. But I think that one is actually a candidate for jury nullification - as in they could decide that the evidence does point to her operating the vehicle under the influence but acquit her on it anyway because the CW’s case in general was so flipping outlandish.
Higgins was also a firefighter and they're trained first responders too.
There isn’t a door as long as Karen or her attorneys don’t create one. If she gets on the stand and somehow gets into a situation where she lies about when she sought legal counsel, she opens the door for Lally to impeach her with the search history.
It's basically only if one of the defense witnesses (or the defense lawyer, questioning a CW witness) opens the door to it somehow.
You mentioning this just brought something back for me from Higgins' testimony that I couldn't figure out at the time. He did say that it was a Wrangler, but at one point in his testimony, he says "the Cherokee - excuse me, Wrangler" or something like that. Curious.
He also testified that Safari search history can be manually deleted.
Why would they panic and cover that up, though? Why wouldn’t they just call for help?
Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that assessment! The pre-arrest statements by LE and the prosecutor were definitely frustrating and contradictory.
I just went to an event between local churches and the Indigenous community, about how to start and/or continue the work of reconciliation and reparations. One of the churches in the area has entered into a covenant with the Six Nations people whereby they are paying a token amount of “rent” to the Indigenous community for the land their church building is on. It amounts to 1% of their operating budget. The greater goal is to enter into an agreement where if the church building is ever decommissioned, the land will be returned to the Six Nations.
I’d be okay with all churches having to do this with the equivalent of what their tax payments would be, vs paying it to the government.
Churches don’t pay taxes. Should they?
canada