On break in the courtroom until 10:45.
1 Like
I noticed a lot of “I don’t recall” and when shown his own report “it appears so” rather than a straightforward admission of what he wrote. Spare me this nonsense again. 
18 Likes
Yep, but Barisone’s suit against the PD saying his rights were violated was dismissed. Amazing, isn’t it?
10 Likes
Odds are the attorney will not say anything g helpful to the defense. He may cite privilege as well.
4 Likes
They did a sub-par job, and they know it. It’s on display for everyone to see. I think some of this is them feeling embarrassed…
10 Likes
Unless that suit was dismissed with prejudice it can be restored to the calendar.
11 Likes
I thought it was Bilinkas who said he was subpoenaeing David as a defense witness!
1 Like
Really sad. This sort of thing really upsets me for any defendant.
3 Likes
I honestly don’t recall if it was or wasn’t.
Interesting!!!
Oh, I would imagine he will avoid answering whatever questions he can.
It will be very interesting to see how the judge handles the cross examination of this witness, and how far Bilinkas can get.
2 Likes
A police department colluding with the Prosecution…say it isn’t so! 
6 Likes
Is it safe to assume that Ed Davis is a friend of JK? I have no idea
4 Likes
Good point.
Can I suggest a slight modification? Maybe the jury is the finder of facts as they interpret them?
And that true facts are the truth?
Or is “fact” actual legal terminology for whatever a jury decides it is? (Asking because I don’t know…)
My point is more that your description of the reported inaccuracies as ‘disgusting’ was a bit of a stretch. Unacceptable? Sure - clerical should be rectified, but in context it was obvious.
Not noting when someone else stated something you didn’t directly observe? My professional order would likely tell me to make that clear if I was inspected, but they wouldn’t pull my licence. It’s not disgusting. That’s all.
My notes are as complete and as accurate as I can be. Still wouldn’t like to be cross examined on the stand on how I phrased things in the time crunch between clients where I’m trying to get as much down as possible. That’s all.
6 Likes
That’s a little naive. There are dozens of chats and BBs out there that could have discussions going on. Or the less than flattering commentary on Twitter.
1 Like
Didn’t someone say earlier upthread that the privilege went out the window after RG, LK and the lawyer discussed their recordings with someone else? Or something like that?
3 Likes
Sort of.
An item is a fact if the finder of fact (here, the jury) determines that item is more likely to be true.
From the Collins Dictionary of Law:
“an event, occurrence or state of affairs known to have happened; to be distinguished from opinion or law. Facts can however be found proven in legal proceedings where they may or may not have actually happened. Facts may also be inferred from other facts.”
trials are a “question of fact” where the jury is asked to decide, effectively, what actually took place.
4 Likes
Very interesting that the patrol officer’s report was dated August 11, but magically the detective’s report needed more than 2 months to get approved, despite his “copious” notes. The notes that never had MB saying “I’m sorry” even though his official report did.
10 Likes
They did. But I’m no expert on that. I find it sometimes confusing as to exactly what elements remove privilege.
1 Like
