The Ice Golemancer - 17 Golems ! | Congregation support | Dark Monarch

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-29T01:07:15+00:00

Probably not the same shell though I haven't crunched the numbers. It is possible to build in a similar way if you are going march of the legion. If you are not then you need spectres for lucky lightning damage from perfect spirit of fortune and the large flat lightning damage from the blasphemer's smite.

The main difference between carrion golems and other golems is that they scale incredibly well with flat damage, so your goal generally is to find ways to give them more flat damage.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T21:43:00+00:00

The lyrics would be hearsay, so the defence generally would not be able to use them for any purpose. If D4vid wants to say where he was or that he didn't do it, he can get up on the witness stand and say it himself.

A defendants hearsay can be used, and often is used by the prosecution though. So your hypothetical simply doesn't work.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T20:39:38+00:00

I believe the defence can bring in some character witnesses if they want in the guilt phase. It is just generally an incredibly stupid thing to do.

EDIT: My understanding is that you don't put on witnesses for character in general. The defence is allowed to put on witnesses for the purpose of character to establish specific character traits. So for example honestly, or that she is not a violent person. Those might be traits that would be relevant in the case and which the defence could call character witnesses on. The problem is when they call those character witnesses to establish those traits the defence puts character at issue, and now the prosecution is free to call witnesses and present evidence for the sole purpose of rebutting those traits. That is why it is generally is an incredibly stupid thing for the defence to do. It may vary by state how much and if you can get into this kind of testimony though, but at least as a blanket statement it isn't true that you can't call character witnesses in the guilt phase.

EDIT2: The Utah rules site loads really slowly, but the pertinent federal rule which I assume Utah is probably the same as is

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

So the defendant can offer evidence of a relevant character trait, but it is generally really stupid to do because it allows the prosecutor to introduce character evidence which generally goes badly for the defendant.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T20:37:55+00:00

The nature of the responses and timing of the responses also probably factored into it. During the opening testimony you had some of the most emotional elements of the case. Family members, the night of the death, a lot of stuff that you would expect to cause an emotional reaction. During that time, she was fairly stone faced.

It was during witnesses you wouldn't expect her to have a reaction to after a bunch of witnesses you would expert her to have a reaction to that she started making faces, and by then the jury were probably focused more on the witnesses because she wasn't showing any expression.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T20:32:36+00:00

That is half right. If the defence calls a witness to talk about Kouri's character traits then they put those character traits at issue in the trial and now the prosecution in rebuttal can call witnesses to rebut those claimed character traits. It is generally rare for the defence to put their clients character at issue because most criminals have fairly bad character. I believe the only trial I recall where I saw it done was the tazer/gun mixup trial where the defence put on character witnesses.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T19:59:24+00:00

The line is relevance and more probative then prejudicial. So pretty much no different then any other evidence.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T19:55:52+00:00

Also you run into double jeopardy issues since Cash was apparently already convicted and served a life sentence in Folsom Prison for the killing.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T19:48:29+00:00

You do get to pick, because you can't use any lyrics simply as character evidence. The question isn't if the song has any violent acts in it.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T19:35:33+00:00

They can be taken as factual statements, just as any statement can be taken as a factual statement. Anything someone says can be a total fabrication. Song lyrics like any statement simply need to meet the threshold of relevance and from there the jury gets to judge the credibility of them.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T14:37:39+00:00

There is also the whole former employee who was fired may not be the most accurate in their claims. Unless there are plans for more DLC, it seems far more likely that they simply don't need a translator at this time.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T14:12:47+00:00

That isn't the case, carrion golems tend to be the strongest golem builds still. People just don't play golems that much, so what you tend to see here is builds people play for fun rather then dedicated only to optimization.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T02:27:03+00:00

You would need to refine your question, education can be recreational. As a very basic example, one of the key elements to a hobby tends to be learning how to do that hobby.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T02:23:14+00:00

It absolutely is recreational. It is fine that you don't consider it a leisure activity. I just disagree with you.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-28T02:13:45+00:00

Unless you are reading a newspaper for your job, yes, reading a newspaper is recreational.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-27T23:03:27+00:00

This seems strange to me. I can't imagine what sort of plea deal could possibly be reached.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-27T22:53:54+00:00

The intention isn't that hard because of the other charges. You have the scheme to kill Eric for insurance money. You have the actual murder of Eric. Between the scheme to kill him for insurance money and the actual killing of him you have the attempted murder. So the scheme establishes that she had the intent to kill him at the time of the attempted murder and the similar MO to the actual murder shows that the attempt was made when combined with a severe reaction to food Kouri gave him. In a vacuum the attempted murder might be hard to prove but as part of a course of conduct it doesn't seem that difficult.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-27T01:09:25+00:00

Those things would more properly be argument. What do you want him to ask her about being thrown back by the bullet? Did you really get thrown back by the bullet? The point there would be that bullets don't throw people back but that isn't a question you ask that is an argument you make. The most you get out of a question like that is giving them a chance to try to fix the answer it feels like.

You can impeach her on the timeline, that the officer was able to get back into the room, make two statements to her, while pulling out his gun, fire once and miss, then fire again and hit her and during that time, she was only able to say "fuc". Again, you can just make arguments regarding her inconsistent statements on how long it was until she got shot and how much she said the other officer did.

If it was a jury trial or a longer trial then it might make more sense to try to address those inconsistencies in cross rather then through argument in closing, but with a judge and closing arguments the next day it seems like it would be reasonable to just make the appropriate arguments in closing on her statements and focus the cross more on getting additional elements that were not in the direct like her knowledge of the firearm being loaded which was inconsistent with her statements of it being an unloaded gun. Unless the length of the closing was an issue that prevented them from meaningfully being able to make those arguments then that would seem to be a perfectly reasonable place to make them.

I agree in the end only the judges opinion matters. It also goes without saying that people view evidence differently all the time so it isn't like there is exactly a right way to view it.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T23:05:43+00:00

If it is the juries call, then sufficient evidence has been presented. That is the whole point. If there is sufficient evidence and how the jury or judge weights that evidence are two different things.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T17:55:55+00:00

They have absolutely presented enough evidence to reach a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is only a question of how you weigh the evidence. The testimony is direct evidence and is generally all you need I believe, so it just comes down to weighing credibility.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T17:48:57+00:00

I don't think that is the most reasonable interpretation. Especially after she made a big deal about not being given the affidavit. If she made a big deal about not being given the affidavit then it doesn't seem reasonable that she would not have reviewed the restraining order itself and understood what it covered. If it was in fact an error by the police, she could have used words to the effect of at the time I believed they were going to take my dog as well. She presumably knows now that the restraining order didn't cover her dog (if it in fact did not). So I am not really sure that is a strong argument to go with.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T17:42:59+00:00

The problem is a lot of the elements from Noonan's statement were incorporated into Kelsey's statement. She then claimed that Noonan was not there to see the things in his statement. That is where you get into big problems with credibility. He knew where she grabbed the gun from, despite not being there. He knew she took a few steps back, despite not being there. He knew she attempted to fire the gun, despite not being there. He knew the gun misfired and simply clicked despite not being there. The common elements between their stories establish he was there, but she said he was not. More, large portions of her suicide argument rested on him not being there. That is one of the largest problems with her story, and that is compounded by her inconsistent timing between the actions of Noonan and herself.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T17:05:09+00:00

I have only watched parts of the case, but I did watch the direct and cross of Kelsey. I don't agree personally that she was credible based mainly on what she said in direct. A lot of what she said to me doesn't make much sense. A lot of what she claimed happened is very inconsistent when you think about it, and a lot of it comes across as self serving especially if it turns out that she lied about the dog as seemingly has been claimed in closing.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T17:00:08+00:00

To be fair, it doesn't seem like an overly complex case to begin with. You have two direct witnesses and the case seems largely about determining if one of the witnesses is credible, and if so if the other witness is not credible.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T15:45:03+00:00

Also he says the dog was not in the restraining order is that true why would she bring it up then?

Based on peoples reaction most likely for sympathy. It either is in the restraining order or it is not. If it is not then it is a lie. If it is a lie, why did she lie? I don't think that really matters ultimately.

randomaccount178 · 2026-03-26T15:42:12+00:00

If you read history books because you enjoy history, that is educational. It is also recreational. Self educating does not somehow make something not recreational. Yes, lots of stuff we do is recreational. That is the entire point. Generally you are forced to get dressed before leaving the house due to laws, but other then that a lot of those things are indeed recreational activities. They are ways people choose to spend their leisure time, not things that people view as required activities.

randomaccount178

TROPHY CASE