Just excellent breakdown of the week, and it gets better and better as this podcast progresses to the end of the week. Tony's views just so good to hear. And Jeffrey's insights at the end are so valuable, and add to how trials go on.
Don’t you think the attempted silly trashing of Dr. Mechanic was directed by Miscaviage? I think it was Scientology trying to get their duds on psychologists. Of course, it didn’t work because the premise is absurd.
Goldstein's cross of Dr. Mechanic - Goldstein was seemingly trashing psychology research. I don't think that was Goldstein's agenda - she had Dr. Mechanic say that research subjects have no motive or reason to lie about their experiences with sexual assault, and so intimating that the three 'alleged' victims in this trial have several possible reasons to lie - revenge, money, sadness.
BTW, I think Cohen is making a big deal about the charging incident because JD3 didn’t tell as many people as soon about it (so far as I recall.) However, the Jury Instructions will definitely instruct the jury to find D guilty or not on the charging incident. There will be no instruction concerning the other incident.
With regard to Goldstein's cross of Dr. Mechanic, if asked whether or not the research had "any thing to do with the facts of the case," wouldn't her answer be "I don't know?" After all, "anything to do" is a pretty broad concept. The idea that the research may relate in some way to the testimony of the any of the witnesses or their behavior, it is related.
Just excellent breakdown of the week, and it gets better and better as this podcast progresses to the end of the week. Tony's views just so good to hear. And Jeffrey's insights at the end are so valuable, and add to how trials go on.
Good to hear the wrap up of this week's trial. Thanks
I've adopted your intro/outro song as the background music to my thoughts over the last few weeks.
Don’t you think the attempted silly trashing of Dr. Mechanic was directed by Miscaviage? I think it was Scientology trying to get their duds on psychologists. Of course, it didn’t work because the premise is absurd.
Goldstein's cross of Dr. Mechanic - Goldstein was seemingly trashing psychology research. I don't think that was Goldstein's agenda - she had Dr. Mechanic say that research subjects have no motive or reason to lie about their experiences with sexual assault, and so intimating that the three 'alleged' victims in this trial have several possible reasons to lie - revenge, money, sadness.
BTW, I think Cohen is making a big deal about the charging incident because JD3 didn’t tell as many people as soon about it (so far as I recall.) However, the Jury Instructions will definitely instruct the jury to find D guilty or not on the charging incident. There will be no instruction concerning the other incident.
With regard to Goldstein's cross of Dr. Mechanic, if asked whether or not the research had "any thing to do with the facts of the case," wouldn't her answer be "I don't know?" After all, "anything to do" is a pretty broad concept. The idea that the research may relate in some way to the testimony of the any of the witnesses or their behavior, it is related.