I have been watching the trial with an open mind, trying to play the role of a juror. I think the prosecution has done a great job of proving it's case; however, I have been a juror and know that things can change on a dime when all facts are revealed. I will tell you that Mr. Brauchler(spelling probably isn't correct) is making me angry because he is attacking doctors...it is different when you go after peoplae who are lying on the stand or who have something to gain from the outcome, but when he attacks professionals for giving their honest opinions, I feel he is turning the jury...like he has something to hide. You do not need to make the witness look foolish and incompetent when the witness is a highly trained professional...he can asked questions normally and with dignity and still get his point across. I have been in a jury room and I know what can happen. The Jury are peope and we all know that both the defense and prosecution play the jury game. It will sway some juror. He needs to stand on his case because the facts of the case are strong, but when he attacks witnesses for no reason, it is like he is afraid of something coming out...just my opinion.
To be honest I haven't understood the point of these tests, and I feel like its hard for me to get to the bottom of that with King because a) he wonders is too much information and b) feeds the witness what he wants him/her to say.
I am finding it puzzling why there are more comments about if someone does or doesn't like Brauchler or King... or that someone is using my name... instead of what they are talking about on the case and what the witness's are saying or not saying?!?!?
Is it typical for the District Attorney to try a case? Usually the assistant DA's do, even in high profile cases. I live in Orlando where the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman trials were aired, and I cannot recall the head DA being this involved.
A lesson I learned when I was little when my older brother picked on me. The more I fussed and whined, the more he kept going. So when a troll (who ever they are) says something, don't get into it. If you can't handle it you can always turn off comments and just watch. Have a nice day! : )
Again, if we are looking at this blog as a small sampling of just random people, like the random people on the jury, then we are getting a pretty good idea of what it looks like with these people all trying to come to a conclusion regarding the shooter's insanity or not! Some people act like adults, and stay on task, and then we have some people (regardless of age, gender, etc.) behaving like little children on the playground,i.e., "you took my name", "I don't like this guy, and the way he cross examines the witness", Let's stay on task folks, good grief. Grow up!
I have learned a lot by watching this trial. Colorado is a very progressive state and this judge is very good at explaining the process. This entire case is about Colorados definition of sanity and they have made that very clear and that has to be the defining factor for the jury..if I were on this jury, I would make sure I kept that in mind. In that, so far, the state has proved its case, that is why I said there is no need for any attacking, just ask the necessary questions to prove your points and get it done...That is all I am saying...We all want justice, but everyone has their own definition of what that is, so I am trying to be respectful and objective as well as honest about how jurors think and perceive the questioning of witnesses.