WTF was the pumpkin BS from Cohen? It makes my skin crawl. As for this witness, just by reading it she seems kind of scattered. I do understand that she was nervous when she spoke to the detective and that there was some miscommunication there. There were times it seemed Cohen was badgering the witness. However, this was probably Cohen's best showing thus far. That is NOT saying a lot for such "high powered" legal representation. I'm looking forward to re-direct.
I think that was Tony's joke, because Cohen was wearing such a loud suit/shirt/tie/pocket square combo. Not quite as loud as the Saturday Night Live character David Pumpkins, but I think that was the joke.
Yeah! I figured that out when he spoke about it in the video. I still have no idea who David Pumpkins is-except it was on SNL. I stopped watching that show long ago, so my bad for being out of the loop!!
This cross reads like something from a different decade. Just because she kissed him, or was "into it" (though I'm not sure she was), or said yes (or didn't say no) at one point doesn't mean that she consented to intercourse. Just because she had a couple of drinks doesn't mean she consented.
Because she’s a scientologist and she’s in ethics trouble and she isn’t allowed to read the stories, just make disgusting comments on them, like the one she made in the last one as cathy p. I hope she actually gets brave enough to read the testimony of all three girls and escapes scientology rather than continues to be controlled by them.
I can see how you might conclude these things from my reporting and you may be right about how the jury is feeling. I can only say that none of the very experienced journalists I have polled see it the way you are describing. They all think the defense is in trouble at this point. But again, we really don't know how the jury is thinking. We can only report what we see
"If you say “no” but then don’t stop and try to leave then “no” loses any meaning."
The question is whether she consented to his acts. She says he commanded her. Staying was not consenting to the acts. I can't believe it is still necessary to say but saying "no" actually means "no I do not consent to what you are doing to me." And she kept saying it.
WTF was the pumpkin BS from Cohen? It makes my skin crawl. As for this witness, just by reading it she seems kind of scattered. I do understand that she was nervous when she spoke to the detective and that there was some miscommunication there. There were times it seemed Cohen was badgering the witness. However, this was probably Cohen's best showing thus far. That is NOT saying a lot for such "high powered" legal representation. I'm looking forward to re-direct.
I think that was Tony's joke, because Cohen was wearing such a loud suit/shirt/tie/pocket square combo. Not quite as loud as the Saturday Night Live character David Pumpkins, but I think that was the joke.
Yeah! I figured that out when he spoke about it in the video. I still have no idea who David Pumpkins is-except it was on SNL. I stopped watching that show long ago, so my bad for being out of the loop!!
Badgering, exactly my thought
This cross reads like something from a different decade. Just because she kissed him, or was "into it" (though I'm not sure she was), or said yes (or didn't say no) at one point doesn't mean that she consented to intercourse. Just because she had a couple of drinks doesn't mean she consented.
Really? You would phone your mom and tell her a story like that?
I don't understand why you say that?
Because she’s a scientologist and she’s in ethics trouble and she isn’t allowed to read the stories, just make disgusting comments on them, like the one she made in the last one as cathy p. I hope she actually gets brave enough to read the testimony of all three girls and escapes scientology rather than continues to be controlled by them.
I can see how you might conclude these things from my reporting and you may be right about how the jury is feeling. I can only say that none of the very experienced journalists I have polled see it the way you are describing. They all think the defense is in trouble at this point. But again, we really don't know how the jury is thinking. We can only report what we see
"If you say “no” but then don’t stop and try to leave then “no” loses any meaning."
The question is whether she consented to his acts. She says he commanded her. Staying was not consenting to the acts. I can't believe it is still necessary to say but saying "no" actually means "no I do not consent to what you are doing to me." And she kept saying it.