Yesterday was another busy one for us at the Danny Masterson trial as we watched defense attorney Philip Cohen cross-examine alleged rape victim Jane Doe 1.
What newspapers, websites or media outlets are covering this trial? I haven't seen any tabloids with a Massterson story this week. I guess the tabloids come out on Thursday or Friday. Maybe one or more will show up at the grocery store today.
Trials present witnesses in the order which fits the schedule of the witnesses. As Mueller mentioned in opening, that would be only the time you would get to see the timeline as it occurred. There is usually an attempt to keep things in a semblance of order, but conflicting schedules of experts, etc. come into play.
It’s sort of like shooting a film. All the scenes which occur on the beach are shot at the same time, then all the ones in the city, then they are pieced together to make it coherent. Opening and closing arguments are the “editing” that make it coherent.
i would think that the prosecutor would present witnesses like presley after the victim with whom they are connected testifies. in that way, you build up each victim’s testimony with corroborating evidence and you can tie each victim’s story to show a pattern of behavior. but these are talented lawyers on both sides so we will see what they do in time. thanks for your hard work.
QUESTION: Would defense lawyer's non use of the "S" word be for reasons of the appeal "religious rights" angle, longer range. That's immediately my guess, and let the prosecution side bring up the "S" word in trial first, and thus establish the prosecution side as being wrong to do so, in the actual trial. ?
My ingrained (brainwashed) skepticism possible delusory thought, is that everything that Scientology side lawyers do, has some long range tactical goal, and it's never a mistake.
FURTHER QUESTION/PARANOID FEAR: On the appeal, will the "weak" link be the Scientology "religious penitent" Scientology paperwork. Is the LONG range showdown going to be a decade from now, the "religious Priest/Penitent" paperwork.
It's the triple whammy, or back and forth three times, "religious" angle argument.
And goes then back to the Hubbard "religious angle" initial strategic direction of Scientology.
The "why" of Scientology, is their taking the "religious angle" legally in a country.
It's their built in ACE in the hand.
KRs are great, but if "religious" and can't be used, on appeal, up the road, then us observers who know the inside and out, of everything Scientology, get no justice, since the US system loophole is the "religious angle" longrange.
What a world, it's why to me, in the end of all things Scientology, one has freedom of speech to detail the foulness of all things Scientology, while lawyers from law firms make their money playing law games, and off of "rich" money pots, like a Scientology money pot.
Rinder's book doesn't bring up Hubbard's scathing hatred of most lawyers, but I think even paranoid "religion angle" Scientology scam quackery subject founder Hubbard hated and needed lawyers to keep his "religion angle" scam going. And it goes.
Freedom of speech, ex members writing their predicament brainwashed experiences, ought to forever warn satisfactorily all newcomers to steer clear of Scientology.
Media and publishers have a lucrative remunerative future payday on the freedom of speech discussion of this Hubbard scam and the debris trail it leaves.
What newspapers, websites or media outlets are covering this trial? I haven't seen any tabloids with a Massterson story this week. I guess the tabloids come out on Thursday or Friday. Maybe one or more will show up at the grocery store today.
Trials present witnesses in the order which fits the schedule of the witnesses. As Mueller mentioned in opening, that would be only the time you would get to see the timeline as it occurred. There is usually an attempt to keep things in a semblance of order, but conflicting schedules of experts, etc. come into play.
It’s sort of like shooting a film. All the scenes which occur on the beach are shot at the same time, then all the ones in the city, then they are pieced together to make it coherent. Opening and closing arguments are the “editing” that make it coherent.
i would think that the prosecutor would present witnesses like presley after the victim with whom they are connected testifies. in that way, you build up each victim’s testimony with corroborating evidence and you can tie each victim’s story to show a pattern of behavior. but these are talented lawyers on both sides so we will see what they do in time. thanks for your hard work.
I was curious if Mackenzie Phillips was a Scientologist. She's possibly been to the Celebrity Centre and was a Narconon client: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-OqNUYywn0
QUESTION: Would defense lawyer's non use of the "S" word be for reasons of the appeal "religious rights" angle, longer range. That's immediately my guess, and let the prosecution side bring up the "S" word in trial first, and thus establish the prosecution side as being wrong to do so, in the actual trial. ?
My ingrained (brainwashed) skepticism possible delusory thought, is that everything that Scientology side lawyers do, has some long range tactical goal, and it's never a mistake.
FURTHER QUESTION/PARANOID FEAR: On the appeal, will the "weak" link be the Scientology "religious penitent" Scientology paperwork. Is the LONG range showdown going to be a decade from now, the "religious Priest/Penitent" paperwork.
It's the triple whammy, or back and forth three times, "religious" angle argument.
And goes then back to the Hubbard "religious angle" initial strategic direction of Scientology.
The "why" of Scientology, is their taking the "religious angle" legally in a country.
It's their built in ACE in the hand.
KRs are great, but if "religious" and can't be used, on appeal, up the road, then us observers who know the inside and out, of everything Scientology, get no justice, since the US system loophole is the "religious angle" longrange.
What a world, it's why to me, in the end of all things Scientology, one has freedom of speech to detail the foulness of all things Scientology, while lawyers from law firms make their money playing law games, and off of "rich" money pots, like a Scientology money pot.
Rinder's book doesn't bring up Hubbard's scathing hatred of most lawyers, but I think even paranoid "religion angle" Scientology scam quackery subject founder Hubbard hated and needed lawyers to keep his "religion angle" scam going. And it goes.
Freedom of speech, ex members writing their predicament brainwashed experiences, ought to forever warn satisfactorily all newcomers to steer clear of Scientology.
Media and publishers have a lucrative remunerative future payday on the freedom of speech discussion of this Hubbard scam and the debris trail it leaves.