Rewatching this (reminded of this whole thing when dreading channel reposted)-I am struck by how similar EM is to Jodi Arias. Even the tone while testifying. The broke artist thing, the fake amnesia/fog, the pseudo intellectual persona..it’s wild. Thanks Rottweiler for sharing with the dreading! They did a good job.
They are allowed to ask leading questions during cross-examination, in fact they're supposed to. During direct-examination leading questions aren't allowed. These are the Prosecution's witnesses so of course the Defense is going to object to the Prosecution asking leading questions. You're complaining about the Defense doing exactly what they should do. When the Defense presents their case in chief I'm sure the Prosecution will object to the Defense asking leading questions but then they'll ask leading questions during their cross-examination. Will you take issue with the objections in that scenario? (Hopefully not because they'd simply be doing what theyre supposed to.) It'd be awesome if both sides would avoid leading questions during direct-examination but it's common for them to try and get away with it. )
19:31 So clear that she is a narcissist. You can see her looking at the pictures of her taken at the hospital. It’s like she loves being the main character of this story of her “assault”. She loves being the victim. I don’t think I could look at myself in such a vulnerable situation. On the stand she talks about how she needs to doodle to help her “breath” as this is all very triggering for her 🙄, yet we can clearly see her not doodling when the nurse is going over her pictures and report. It’s like she doesn’t want to pay attention when they are going over her lies but when it comes to looking at her pics of her looking like a poor victim of assault, she pays attention because she is seriously that narcissistic
Throughout, she also focuses - almost *stares* - at the witnesses who seem most likely to sympathize with her 'poor me' routine, usually friends or people in caregiver roles (nurse, farmer), but doodles and seems disinterested in factual witnesses who she's got less possible sway over.
By "poor guy" do you mean the BDSM dude who was living with a meth dealer? I'm not advocating just killing people but don't be fooled just because dude looks soft.
The defense attornies are terrible! She tells the social worker that "PTSD" is a "term of art" and at 57:40 says the "common, ordinary person" wouldn't know what that means 🤦♂She just testifies instead of asking questions and tacks on "right?" at the end of a sentence to make it a question. The guy does it too, but he likes to say "do we agree?". It's super annoying when they say something that's wrong, the witness answers by disagreeing, but the attorney phrases the next question as if they said yes. They really think they're so much smarter than everyone else!
Leading questions are allowed during cross-examination. You're complaining about them doing what they're supposed to. During direct-examination open-ended questions are supposed to be asked and then leading-questions are allowed during cross-examination. Those are the rules.
The "scratches" on her lip are consistent with the rest of the acne on her face. And while i hate her I'm not judging her appearance this is an observation from someone who has struggled with acne her whole life.
56:30 - this seems so misleading. The situation being discussed is from a consensual relationship with her boyfriend's friend, John. It was only after he found out about the affair that she told her boyfriend, Jason, that she had been sexually assaulted by John. To garner sympathy instead of owning up to cheating, she accused a man of taking advantage of her. Jason took those claims seriously, however, and had her file a police report - which was soon dismissed when messages between herself and John came to light proving that she was a willing participant in the affair.
Why is it OK for the defense basically to testify but not for the prosecution???? That is not even leading, but they are testifying for the witness while the prosecution is sleeping instead of screaming objection!
Nurse was good, subjective, yet sensitive. Ezra loved listening to the nurse talking about her. She was hoping Jason would come running to her since she had been assaulted. So she was “assaulted” by John and Alex?? Wow, histrionic narcissist; extreme victimhood and drama to get attention.
19:00 Literally _zero_ relevance to the line of questioning about whether or not she asked for pain meds 🙄 "10/10" pain is also a bit irritating. I realize pain is subjective, but 10/10, say it with me, means: worst pain you've ever experienced in your whole life.
Yeah she didn't want drugs because for one she wasn't in major pain she had a couple scratches she did to herself. And because she's not a drug addict, she's a psycho, does not mean she's not a manipulative person, being manipulative doesn't mean you do drugs
@@kinseyclay *EXACTLY.* It's just funny that the defense kept repeating that as if it was somehow relevant. Also, if you're in _actual_ 10/10 pain, even 8/10, there's not a damn thing wrong with wanting to be out of pain, but they just kept throwing that around, which is damaging to patients with legitimate emergencies. Everything about her & her defense team makes me ill.
I'm a chronic pain patient due to illness/disease. My daily pain is "off the charts" but controlled at a steady 6. 10/10 to me means a GSW wound. I've never felt felt one but would imagine that's more painful than my everyday at least short term. My stomach ruptured & I still wouldn't use 10/10. Doctors just roll their eyes at you anyway if you use a 10.
@@emeraldblue5291 Yup. Same here, and same for my husband who developed early-onset osteoporosis at... 30? You learn to deal with it, so I'm sure her pain threshold is hot garbage anyway. However, I went through 18 hrs of induced, labor unmedicated, (ended up with an emergency c-section so I have no idea what that part is like lol) and _that_ is 10/10 lol. However, I used to think I was at like 8/10 pain from kidney stones or an ovarian cyst, but nope. My entire view of pain changed 😆 I mean, the whole point was to plant seeds for her narrative to grow. She said she had 10/10 pain in her groin, she wanted them to look at her groin and see the "cuts," all without saying _"Oh yeah, he did this to me,"_ because she _couldn't_ say it because it would ruin her whole amnesia narrative... Her whole story is infuriating.
Why are they showing a sexual assault nurse the clothes? She's not a forensic scientist. She examines bodies not clothing. The defense are so desperate, but their dog and pony show is embarassing.
The defense also spent a LOT of time going over the possible obscuring of footprints in the mud and that really didn't seem to go anywhere and came across as pointless.
I’ve noticed that the male defence lawyer really does talk just to look like he’s doing something cause NOTHING he says makes sense or isn’t even worth mentioning . Like when he was asking the officers about the time, minute and second the police went to Alex’s house when John was there.
Lawyer objects to call laceration laceration, Prosecutor goes on and asks what are kind the injuries, witness says laceration... stupid antics and shenanigans costing a fortune to the tax payer.
