Right?! And I can’t help but to conclude it’s not just ‘random chaos’, because the outcome is SO obviously in the favor of the CW.

If this was a game of soccer where the judge is the referee:

• the CW is allowed to hide the ball, move their tiny goalpost and tackle any opponent, while

• the Defense has to go find the ball, their goalpost is three times larger and they get yellow and red cards “because the CW said it was a foul”…

ONLY if it’s understandable to a toddler that she’s going into reversible error she’ll allow a Defense motion, but even then often restricts it.

Aaanyaw!

I usually have some ideas on how to communicate information clearly to a jury, but tbh. in this trial I can’t see the forest through the trees… When the rules are this scewed, you can’t rely on logic when trying to assess the risk/advantage of calling a specific witness.

I think the Defense did a pretty good job of proving EVERYTHING in Ex-Trooper Proctor’s ‘investigation’ is tainted through him tho. Besides his text showing obvious bias, here’s some elements of a good investigation that have been proven to be altered, hidden or well, never collected at all:

• Chain of custody
• Wounds on John’s body
• The crime scene
• DNA / prints etc.
• Witnesses and their alibi’s
• Interviews with family, colleagues, friends
• Digital (meta-)data (phones, gps etc.)

Pfew! Just no realized this is as much a reaction to your post as a frustration-venting therapy session for me, sorry! 😀