Today 11:20 am
Just so you know, in the second trial, they have video evidence that the disgraced lead investigator went to the police station where the SUV was improperly impounded and did SOMETHING to the taill light BEFORE the pieces of it were "discovered" on a scene that had already been searched and opened to the public. That police station - very importantly - was recused from the investigation AND farther from the place where the vehicle was seized than two different state police barracks with secure garages, where the vehicle SHOULD have been taken by the tow truck that seized it for evidence. It should never have been taken to the recused police department - but that's where it was taken, for reasons investigators cannot explain.Skans » 38 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not sure what you are getting at. I saw a lawyer grilling some dude over a linked In page where the guy said he had a Bachelor of General Studies, concentration in math, rather than a Bachelor of Science in math, as referenced on the Linked In site. I mean, this questioning went on for about 5 minutes. Then, I got bored and tuned out.
The video that shows the crime was handed over to the defense after it was subpoenaed. But the video was inverted, to make it appear that the dishonorably discharged trooper was **** around furtively with the LEFT rear brakelight. The defense experts discovered this trick and forced the state to own up to it. "Oops," said the investigators - "that was an accident." This was a middle of the night visit to the improperly held vehicle by the fired lead investigator, who just happened to be lifelong friends with the alberts, in whose house the cop actually died of a beating.
All of this is being proved by the defense. This is literally a prosecution of the state, at this point. Ms Read is walking if she stands up and shouts "I did it!" - that is the level of doubt the defense has raised. Indeed, the defense has already proved through cross that the state's case is impossible, self-contradictory, all muddled up and improperly "investigated."
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?