Yes, I saw the testimony, thanks. I was looking for the discussion about it with the legal analysts.
1 Like
Oh, stroke of genius. Thanks!
3 Likes
And then Cop 2 said he saw a clip on the back seat of a cop car and no idea how it got there.
8 Likes
In legal terms, “consistent with” is generally understood to mean “that which agrees with” and has nothing to do with repeatability.
A finding that is “consistent with” an outcome is a way to state an opinion that basically means the finding is not diametrically opposed to that outcome.
Thus a front entrance wound is “consistent with” the idea that the shooter was facing his opponent.
24 Likes
I caught that, too. That seemed… odd.
Wouldn’t the prosecution have gone over their testimony with them ahead of time?
6 Likes
Almost assuredly.
4 Likes
You can watch the live trial and the recorded videos on their YouTube channel. No need to pay
5 Likes
I have not seen a video on their YouTube channel of the analysts discussing this case yet. Just the footage from the court room live feed so far.
2 Likes
Absolutely this. For those unfamiliar with trials, it’s typical, especially for criminal defense attorneys, to hire a jury consultant/image consultant. There are tricks and tactics to subtly influence jurors with appearance and body language. There can be a lot of play acting by the attorneys and their clients. It’s theatre.
In this case, with the defendant pleading insanity and self-defense, and given the story line the defense is employing, they may want to try to gain some sympathy for the defendant by trying to project an image of MB being a bit unkempt, frazzled and pathetic. Half crazed looking.
As a defendant, MB absolutely could have had a haircut, a shave and pressed clothes. It’s an absolute right of a defendant to obtain these things for a trial. There are people who are employed to go to the jail to cut hair prior to a court appearance. Men are allowed to shave. Clean and pressed clothes can be provided by the attorney to the defendant to change into in one of the rooms provided for the defendant and his/her lawyer at the courthouse.
During the course of the trial, the consultant and the defense attorney will continue to gauge reactions of the jurors, media and even comments on social media. It would appear that during the morning act, the continual weeping and crazy act was a bit too strong so they toned it down for the afternoon session.
Defense attorneys will do things such as having the defendant wear glasses if they normally don’t, even spraying cooking oil on lenses if they don’t want jurors to clearly see a defendant’s eyes. They will tell a defendant to slump down, or sit up, dab at their eyes, or look very stoic and unperturbed. The attorney and the consultant almost always chooses all the clothes (and hair styles) they want the defendant to wear during a trial in order to project the image they want the jurors to see. In this case, a clean cut, sharply dressed MB would go against the narrative of the defense. If Bilinkas had wanted it, MB would have looked like he normally had for the past several years.
If you look back at numerous televised criminal trials, you’ll usually see a defendant dressed and hair styled with a look that is unlike their look/style in the preceding years.
In all fairness, I should add that prosecutors and trial plaintiff attorneys also do their bit of drama in the courtroom, but not nearly as overt as a criminal defense attorney. With a client facing many years in prison, and if the client can afford it, they pull out all the stops and employ whatever means and tactics at their disposal to try to get a not guilty.
8 Likes
Thanks - I missed that part.
Isn’t that the whole premise of that TV show Bull? I’ve never watched it, but that’s my impression, anyway.
4 Likes
Just like a female plays up what she has to.
3 Likes
I’ve never watched it or even know what it’s about.
Of course a front entrance wound is consistent with the shooter and victim facing each other. But one cannot say that this scenario, in and of itself, is consistent with self defense. And yet that is what was being said. I am disagreeing with the “consistent with self defense” part.
1 Like
But it is consistent with self defense. It agrees with that supposition, as opposed to disproving it.
It’s not a sole finding of fact. It does not exclude the conclusion that the shooting was self defense. Were the shots in the back, that would be INCONSISTENT with self defense; the statement would exclude the conclusion.
19 Likes
Re: the position of the gun not being documented on the diagram, one officer testified that he had taken the gun and placed it in his vehicle.
If the diagram documents those items that were in place in the scene at the time the scene was processed (which is standard), then the gun would not be included because it was already in the officer’s vehicle.
Generally, crime scene documentation will show only what is there at the time, not what they are told about the original location of an object that has been removed. So it would probably be a problem for the prosecution if the gun did appear on that diagram. (Unless this is an acknowledged recreation.)
3 Likes
Here you go. The only reason I’m even vaguely aware of it is because Chris Jackson is in it, and I’m a big fan of his work in Hamilton. Unfortunately, I’m assuming he probably does not get a chance to sing too often on this show.
1 Like
Did anyone else notice in inconsistency in the 2nd officer’s testimony about RG. He said he didn’t keep his focus off of him…but then also said he wasn’t paying much attention to him as he was running around after the dog….
There was also testimony where the defense showed a picture of a dog and the officer said he didn’t recognize it….
9 Likes
To be fair, I consider myself a dog person, but if somebody showed me a picture of a dog I saw running around for 10 minutes 2 1/2 years ago, I might not be able to swear that I recognized it, unless it had a very distinctive marking or feature of some sort.
10 Likes
Without any further information, a front entrance would could equally mean attempted murder/murder or self defense or even an accidental shooting. It could be consistent with any of those scenarios, but not one more than the others. No one has said it excludes the conclusion of self defense; I am simply the only one pointing out that it could equally include murder/attempted murder and accidental shooting. The only thing it is truly consistent with, without having any additional information, is that the shooter and the victim were facing each other.
2 Likes
