I too am confused – what was the point of the sweet (looked frightened) girls (Osborne) testimony? That the police didn’t pay attention to her words? And did it sound like the mum is currently in a relationship or was in the past…? This trial is so intense - I had tears watching the witnesses for the defense today - I did replay Philip Dutton testimony… he is a Super Hero! Be still my heart…
I think the defense was trying to establish that everybody on the property was afraid of LK/RG, which might have made MB’s fears sound more legitimate. And wasn’t there some discussion on a previous thread about RG threatening one of the working students? But the prosecutor and the judge did not let them get very far with that idea.
I did notice that the judge seemed quite friendly to the working student witness.
What does everyone think the prosecution’s was thinking about the defense bringing up two Olympic medalists to be character witnesses? Do you think he kind of gave up a bit there? After all of the witnesses today kind of broke up every single justification LK tried to present towards “motive”……
I think the dog just gets shut down quickly because it is irrelevant. The working student being afraid of the dog has nothing to do with whether or not Michael was a afraid of the dog. If they wanted, they could introduce evidence of eye witness’s testifying to Micheal’s interactions with the dog but they haven’t (probably because Micheal wasn’t afraid of the dog). They also haven’t entered any evidence of the dog being part of Micheals self defence claim. The defence hasn’t entered any evidence suggesting a version of events with regards to the shooting. They haven’t brought forth an expert in ballistics, any sort of analysis of the crime scene etc. Heck even someone to talk about how it would be possible for Lauren’s shirt to not have gunshot residue but for it to somehow be possible for her to have fired a gun as you guys are suggesting. They haven’t presented any of it, presumably because they can’t, because the evidence doesn’t help them.
In my opinion the defence just throwing the kitchen sink at this and hoping the jury won’t vote him guilty because LK and RG are terrible people. And they definitely are, this isn’t really in dispute. His two expert witnesses were pointless today and did nothing to prove Micheal was criminally insane at the time of the shooting. If anything they proved the opposite, that Michael was struggling mentally but otherwise was pretty coherent (other than the memory loss). One ruled out delusional thought under the prosecution cross examination. I find the defences case extremely weak so far, sometimes I question if I’m watching a completely different trial
I felt like the prosecutor was at a little bit of a loss there.
There wasn’t really anything he could say to AB and PD on the cross examination other than to verify that they were not actually on the farm that day to see what happened. And he did bring up the ancient history of the fire at PD’s barn, for all the good that did him.
I don’t think there was really anything he could say to AB without looking like a gigantic insensitive monster following the testimony she gave.