It's not about sides but listening to evidence. Nothing wrong with arguing but one needs to argue with the facts that have come out in this trial.Ahh. So one side is “discussing” and anyone who disagrees is “arguing”. Interesting.
You will have to provide me a link for this. He would have to be beside the tailight to unscrew it and take it for forensics. So you think he took the broken tailight pieces back to the scene and hid them under inches of snow for others to find? Please provide your evidence for that, from this trial. And provide me the details of how you think the shards of tailight were found in JO's clothes, because LE didn't even have the car at that point.Yes
They lied. Just like they lied about the altered video being correct and that proctor was never near the taillight when he obviously was and for a long time.
I have to say as I have watched this trial, it has really hit me how ridiculous this conspiracy theory is and all they'd have to do, go do, pull off, etc. and more. It's absolute asinine and I've resisted saying it but it is. It's a defense woven fantasy. It is RIDICULOUS. The idea anyone could believe in such absolutely FLOORS me. It also worries me for our world.It's not about sides but listening to evidence. Nothing wrong with arguing but one needs to argue with the facts that have come out in this trial.
You will have to provide me a link for this. He would have to be beside the tailight to unscrew it and take it for forensics. So you think he took the broken tailight pieces back to the scene and hid them under inches of snow for others to find? Please provide your evidence for that, from this trial. And provide me the details of how you think the shards of tailight were found in JO's clothes, because LE didn't even have the car at that point.
That's fine though because that is why we have this forum isn't it? Call it arguing or discussing doesn't matter really, call it debating if the term arguing is offensive. I don't have a problem with it except that as soon as someone is asked for a link, often they cannot comply.I have to say as I have watched this trial, it has really hit me how ridiculous this conspiracy theory is and all they'd have to do, go do, pull off, etc. and more. It's absolute asinine and I've resisted saying it but it is. It's a defense woven fantasy. It is RIDICULOUS. The idea anyone could believe in such absolutely FLOORS me. It also worries me for our world.
Yes, it came up with the guy that was on the stand for three days.BTW there was no "altered video". It was motion activated and was a reverse image camera. Thats why the timestamps were the correct way around. I think that confused a lot of people in the first trial but i have not heard anything about all that in this trial. Has it been discussed this time?
If i read something I know to be incorrect, I'll challenge it - it's in my nature.To each their own and if I recall, you came to this thread later on.
For me there is a difference. In Soto, Regina and I disagree on the mother. We debated, discussed, and agreed to disagree, neither of us try to force our opinion down the other's throat nor keep coming back and trying to do it. Ad nauseum for that matter. That's what goes on in this case. When kdg was in here, at least she could discuss it. Few others can on the KR side. It's an attempt always to bring up the same old sh*t and force an opinion.
If you want to, you go for it. I don't call that discussion or debate.
Oh mine too don't get me wrong. And as you can see, I've made a few responses. However, I've also done it previously more than one. It's like going round in circles with emu in Delphi. When it's all been gone through over and over. It will lead nowhere. No one is going to change their mind. Etc.If i read something I know to be incorrect, I'll challenge it - it's in my nature.
I thought it was and is why I asked for a link. It's fine, I could well have missed something in this retrial. If i don't get a link then it's old sh!t.Oh and please note, nothing being said or talked of is about testimony in THIS trial. It's old sh*t.
Well emu isn't commenting in here any more it seems. I wonder why? Perhaps he will give his two cents.Oh mine too don't get me wrong. And as you can see, I've made a few responses. However, I've also done it previously more than one. It's like going round in circles with emu in Delphi. When it's all been gone through over and over. It will lead nowhere. No one is going to change their mind. Etc.
Unlikely you will see a link.I thought it was and is why I asked for a link. It's fine, I could well have missed something in this retrial. If i don't get a link then it's old sh!t.
He said in the basement I think it was that he isn't up to it. Considering he started it and it is his pet case, he must be struggling as he was always very active in here.Well emu isn't commenting in here any more it seems. I wonder why? Perhaps he will give his two cents.
I asked in here repeatedly in the first trial what the niece had to say. To no avail as I guess it does not fit the innocent side so no one would go there. I finally went and found it. So I know what she has to say.BTW i have found a link showing what the niece said. I will find and post but my adblocker would not let me read it. If anyone can get in, please copy pasta. Did they interview the niece and nephew in the first trial? I just got time to read that the niece said they were always arguing, then I got chucked out.
Link to follow.
Oh, I think it was a very clever idea!I thought it was a good idea. Better than shovels and it preserved evidence, as we have seen.
Yeah showing an ATF officer doing his job at 1:30 in the morning to ensure vehicles don't get snowed in in the event of an emergency.
I managed to get in and updated the post with her testimony. Very interesting. Do we have her testimony from the first trial on here too? I'll do a search and see if i can find it for comparison.I asked in here repeatedly in the first trial what the niece had to say. To no avail as I guess it does not fit the innocent side so no one would go there. I finally went and found it. So I know what she has to say.
I had hoped the other day to go look for someone who attended and could cover her testimony but most I watch are not attending, just covering from the live coverage.
None of it is beneficial to KR that is for sure. There is quite a bit the niece saw that night and she had to call the "friend" and so on. And that she heard I know.
The nephew I think mostly could probably only testify to the relationship and her behavior during and after.
She never again spoke to anyone who knew John!She shed enough on the night for a couple of years. Did she attend his funeral? Has he had a funeral?