And speaking of inconsistencies ... Let's see if the jury caught a big one from Cohen: In one sentence he states, "Look, a woman can report a rape at any time, whether it's two minutes, two years, or 23 years. I never questioned anybody about why they waited so long." And then a few sentences later, he states, "Then we have Tricia V. She was very interesting because even though her allegation isn't charged, she crystallized so much. She waited 23 years to tell anyone about what happened." Isn't that kinda "questioning" the time that passed? If THAT isn't an "evolution" of statements (to use Cohen's own phrasing), then I don't know what is!
Ok, let’s preface this fact with the fact that I wouldn’t be on the jury, I would have been excluded for half a dozen reasons before being seated. But, had I been seated, I would have stopped listening to Cohen about the same time I stopped processing anything I was reading in his closing argument. He said if the rapist believed he had consent and woke up smiling, it wasn’t rape.
“The defendant is not guilty if he reasonably believed he had consent, even if he's wrong. Even if he's wrong. Wakes up smiling (and thinks that he had consent.)”. WTAF
He just M F'd the jury with a classic 1960's defense. Nauseating. Showing the blow up picture was not about the bruising. I am hoping they can wade through the material with objectivity and see that 'the church' was the proxy for defendant's threat and retaliation. He knew they had his back, for sure.
I read some of his arguments and it seems like he exaggerated or embellished some important points, ie., One of the victims, I believe Jane Doe 1, went into DM's kitchen to get herself an alcoholic beverage when it was DM who gave her an alcoholic drink when she arrived. Also, Cohen states that Jane Doe 3 invited DM to her apartment even though DM showed up out of the blue with friends in an SUV with a flask containing liquid.
And speaking of inconsistencies ... Let's see if the jury caught a big one from Cohen: In one sentence he states, "Look, a woman can report a rape at any time, whether it's two minutes, two years, or 23 years. I never questioned anybody about why they waited so long." And then a few sentences later, he states, "Then we have Tricia V. She was very interesting because even though her allegation isn't charged, she crystallized so much. She waited 23 years to tell anyone about what happened." Isn't that kinda "questioning" the time that passed? If THAT isn't an "evolution" of statements (to use Cohen's own phrasing), then I don't know what is!
Ok, let’s preface this fact with the fact that I wouldn’t be on the jury, I would have been excluded for half a dozen reasons before being seated. But, had I been seated, I would have stopped listening to Cohen about the same time I stopped processing anything I was reading in his closing argument. He said if the rapist believed he had consent and woke up smiling, it wasn’t rape.
W T F
“The defendant is not guilty if he reasonably believed he had consent, even if he's wrong. Even if he's wrong. Wakes up smiling (and thinks that he had consent.)”. WTAF
IKR, smh
Couldn't read all of it. If he was that sure of Danny's innocence - where were all of his character witnesses. Grrr. Disgusted.
We all know Danny's witnesses were shipped off to all of corners of the world. Lol. Seriously though I agree with you.
I figured Julian Schwartz would most definitely be overseas. Pity. He needs to get roped in at some point.
Same with me! I greatly dislike Cohen. He’s got a slimy job, and he’s willingly doing it.
That was hard to read. 🙄
I'm so curious about what the jury must be thinking.
Great job Tony.... Thanks
I couldn't even get through Cohen's closing. I stopped as it was upsetting and gross.
I feel so dicombobulated after reading Cohen's closing statements.
He just M F'd the jury with a classic 1960's defense. Nauseating. Showing the blow up picture was not about the bruising. I am hoping they can wade through the material with objectivity and see that 'the church' was the proxy for defendant's threat and retaliation. He knew they had his back, for sure.
Good finish for Coen. Enough reasonable doubt planted. Takes 2 convictions or he walks.
I read some of his arguments and it seems like he exaggerated or embellished some important points, ie., One of the victims, I believe Jane Doe 1, went into DM's kitchen to get herself an alcoholic beverage when it was DM who gave her an alcoholic drink when she arrived. Also, Cohen states that Jane Doe 3 invited DM to her apartment even though DM showed up out of the blue with friends in an SUV with a flask containing liquid.