@Lisa1062@piersmorgan I thought he said he’d eradicated Iran’s nuclear capabilities last year? I don’t suppose the real reason behind the war could be Netanyahu pulling Trump’s strings to support Israel in THEIR war. Trump needs to stop being a puppet.
@sladdengop33955@Lizbethne30 I hated the misogyny he showed. Especially in his opening statement, describing Arielle as unfaithful, unwilling and untrue. He lost me right there.
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg@MarinaPurkiss And even more energetic than your mediocre, lacklustre tenure in the House of Commons. You’re the only mp I’ve ever seen reposing across a commons bench. I’m guessing fuel price hikes and unwarranted war are issues that don’t bother you.
@crimeunmasked@CourtPencil The stuff about his conduct with his ex wife should come in. It shows a pattern of controlling behaviour. He’s definitely guilty imo.
@maricath12@pacflyway@factspeakr@CourtTV I think they did. His examination of her financial benefits in the weeks before March 24th. He was looking to see how much money he’d get after she died. He staged it all, the birthday card, the meal reservation and then his calls to his son. He absolutely wanted to kill her.
@JohnWLuther76@CourtTV I’m sure you’ll be sending him his commissary when he’s in prison. He’s not a big guy, sure he’ll become a whore for some of his fellow inmates. He’ll get what’s coming to him.
@cathyrusson@CourtPencil Do you think the state will bring Arielle back in rebuttal to respond to his account of what happened on the hime? I hope they do becaus3 his story reeks of bs to me.
@PhilipCDube Like many other defendants he thinks he can fool the jury. The only authentic part of his testimony was his obvious anger at Arielle for her ‘affair’. He knows he did it but he thinks he was justified. Misogyny running rampant between him and his obnoxious attorney.
@johnfordthe@Al84535365451@LawyerYouKnow He initially said no. Then he went away, did some research and said defence could call witness but that would open the door to the state being able to call 2 disallowed witnesses to rebut the defence. It sounded like the 2 state witnesses would have been v damaging to defence
@ArchetypeReader@LawyerYouKnow He had no cause to get a search warrant for Ronnie’s phone and if his phone really did have messages between him and Eric that implicate Eric in drug use he’d have been happy to hand it over.
@Al84535365451@LawyerYouKnow Because if they had used that to try to show an incomplete investigation it opened the door to the state being able use 2 witnesses (including one recorded phone call) who, by the sounds of it would have blown the defence witness out if the water.
@abigailreeed@LawyerYouKnow Definitely. Like in the Brian Walsh case where the defence promised in his opening that Walsh would take the stand then didn’t. It’s not great. If I was a juror I’d absolutely think they’re not confident she would counter the evidence on cross.
@R5Crosby@LawyerYouKnow I agree but I don’t think she did a good enough job. The lead detective’s comment about fentanyl being in the house in Eric’s stomach was magnificent. It stopped her in her tracks.
@LawyerYouKnow It tells me they have nothing. They can’t refute the accounting expert or the forensic digital expert. So maybe they think the state haven’t put the fentanyl laced Moscow mule (allegedly) in kouri’s hand and that she gave it to Eric. 🤷🏻♀️
The state did enough to convince me.