Wattage wrote: ↑16 May 2025 19:54 pm
Thomas is listed on a witnessnlist but that doesnt actually mean he is going to testfiy in this trial.
Andnit looks like thomasnis far away from this as he was never listed as being in the room that night. 6 were in the room at the same time as the accused- batherson, steel, bean, steenbergen, comtois, and howden.
2 others were in the room earlier before the gangbang- raddysh and katchouk. Both raddysh and katchouk said mcleod tried to offer them [censored] from her(not her) but they declined and left the room quickly. One of thee wisest decisions they could have made cuz their reputations wont be tarnished by this while ones merely in the room at time could definitely be.
Thomas was never in the room and only saw them beforehand.
Yeah, his name has yet to come up in this trial as far as I’m aware. Wasn’t in the room, wasn’t in any of the group chats. Thank God. If he’s a witness it sounds like it’s likely to be something minor like “so and so said this the next day at the golf fundraiser.”
As for today’s development, it certainly sounds strange. A defense attorney apparently made a rude comment about a juror? Isn’t that like lawyer rule #1? Don’t do anything to make a juror dislike you or your client?
So now it’ll be decided by the judge instead of them starting from scratch again.
Wattage wrote: ↑16 May 2025 19:54 pm
Thomas is listed on a witnessnlist but that doesnt actually mean he is going to testfiy in this trial.
Andnit looks like thomasnis far away from this as he was never listed as being in the room that night. 6 were in the room at the same time as the accused- batherson, steel, bean, steenbergen, comtois, and howden.
2 others were in the room earlier before the gangbang- raddysh and katchouk. Both raddysh and katchouk said mcleod tried to offer them [censored] from her(not her) but they declined and left the room quickly. One of thee wisest decisions they could have made cuz their reputations wont be tarnished by this while ones merely in the room at time could definitely be.
Thomas was never in the room and only saw them beforehand.
Yeah, his name has yet to come up in this trial as far as I’m aware. Wasn’t in the room, wasn’t in any of the group chats. Thank God. If he’s a witness it sounds like it’s likely to be something minor like “so and so said this the next day at the golf fundraiser.”
As for today’s development, it certainly sounds strange. A defense attorney apparently made a rude comment about a juror? Isn’t that like lawyer rule #1? Don’t do anything to make a juror dislike you or your client?
So now it’ll be decided by the judge instead of them starting from scratch again.
No, the juror said they repeatedly saw the defense attornyes whispering to each other and laughing as they entered the room. They never heatd what the defense attorney said but just felt likenthe defense attorneys were talking about and chuckling about them and they let whole jury know they felt thisnway as well as judge.
To me it just sounds like a paranoid person(or a brilliant person trying to get out of jury duty) andni doubt the lawyers were actually talking about them. The defense attorneys want to be on the jurors good side, not making fun of them.
Somehow this person thinks its about them. They must be very insecure about their appearance to think defense attorneys are actually gonna be making fun of the instead of talking about their client and defense
Cardsfan1586 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025 08:10 am
Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.
A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.
As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.
Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.
In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.
Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.
I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags
No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.
In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.
Well you could argue "sensationalized media cases" does apply here as the media is what pressured charges after prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges I believe.
Yeah I suppose you could in the beginning. Almost any criminal case involving public figures has an element of sensationalism. Then you start reading the text chain that is now everywhere. Kind of kills the original stupid point about prosecutors going to trial all the time without evidence
And I highly doubt the media influenced this prosecution. Maybe you’ve seen something I have not.
Cardsfan1586 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025 08:10 am
Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.
A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.
As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.
Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.
In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.
Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.
I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags
No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.
In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.
Well you could argue "sensationalized media cases" does apply here as the media is what pressured charges after prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges I believe.
Yeah I suppose you could in the beginning. Almost any criminal case involving public figures has an element of sensationalism. Then you start reading the text chain that is now everywhere. Kind of kills the original stupid point about prosecutors going to trial all the time without evidence
And I highly doubt the media influenced this prosecution. Maybe you’ve seen something I have not.
Do people really think that about prosecutors?? - at least in the felony context- a case "starts" because a trier of fact has found probable cause after hearing evidence either through a grand or a judge following a prelim hearing. You can argue the strength of the evidence but the notion that someone is prosecuted without evidence or a prosecutor goes to trial without evidence is well just dumb.
Cardsfan1586 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025 08:10 am
Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.
A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.
As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.
Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.
In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.
Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.
I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags
No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.
In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.
Well you could argue "sensationalized media cases" does apply here as the media is what pressured charges after prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges I believe.
Yeah I suppose you could in the beginning. Almost any criminal case involving public figures has an element of sensationalism. Then you start reading the text chain that is now everywhere. Kind of kills the original stupid point about prosecutors going to trial all the time without evidence
And I highly doubt the media influenced this prosecution. Maybe you’ve seen something I have not.
Do people really think that about prosecutors?? - at least in the felony context- a case "starts" because a trier of fact has found probable cause after hearing evidence either through a grand or a judge following a prelim hearing. You can argue the strength of the evidence but the notion that someone is prosecuted without evidence or a prosecutor goes to trial without evidence is well just dumb.
If you slowly read thru the 900 posts quoted above you will see zoumiz2024 type that exact thing about prosecutors. That' s the statement that riled me up.
