Hey,
Black BBM by me on some of your comments below
RED BBM my comments to your comments.
Finally, on the bottom, a few things to watch for if you fast forward the hearing the Guttwein's argument ... (Gull's counsel's turn) .
Maybe I can be more precise later, but there was a lot of SCI attitude during Guttwein, and I've listed (far below) a few of those to check out.
I do it too with lack of time
but Olenna you go beyond and say things that all others who watched or saw or read the very same thing saw or heard no such thing on and don't link and I don't do that without saying I am unsure or heard this from somewhere, don't take it as fact, etc.
s,etc.
If I catch things you don't, if I interpret tone and subtext ... why is that troublesome? Speculating and puzzling things out from all sides - has absolutely nothing to do with picking "sides". Give me the big picture and the chess board. A different pair of glasses (point of view) on each question ... gives a broader view, see moving parts and a variety of possible outcomes. The deep emotions we all experience wanting to see justice for these young victims are not diminished by critical thinking. In fact, for me this type of analysis is hopeful; it can help one feel less anxious, less powerless and have faith, rather than fear in the process. JMHO
Throughout the ISC defense filings every single time the defense filed something or the public defenders association or whatever you cane in here crowing as if the ISC ruled in their favor? No?
Good grief; I brought links. I'd have brought the links whether D or Gull prevailed. ISC agreed Gull's docket was out of order and against rules. That validated (for a large vested-public) that Gull must keep a proper public docket on this high profile case. IMO, that's transparency and a win for all. Celebrate it. ISC agreed to hear the 2nd Writ rather than pushing it to a lower court. IMO - being granted a hearing and not rejected outright was a big step, that's a win. This week ISC ruled in Relator's favor protecting RA's (and everyone's ) civil rights - Celebrate when the system works that way. Good stuff for everyone. We're at a high court talking civil rights. That's the venue, civil rights at stake. It's not a verdict in the murder trial. If folks have different views it's probably b/c we're wearing those different glasses. JMHO
(True: I understand Gull's overreach to be an enemy of Libby and Abby and their families and the integrity of this trial and its verdict. She stands in the way of a just conclusion. She abused RA's basic rights, when her 1st priority is to protect them. If/when he's found guilty, its imperative the verdict holds. So far, she's given RA at least 3 ways to appeal this thing, get a mistrial. Some see Gull as some disciplinarian over a whacky Defense strategy ... well, this is NOT a Judge's role ... and I do not think that's what she's wants to do, actually. Gull's been lazy, careless, insecure, manages neither docket nor schedule and made fatal errors. Maybe she just had a bad couple of months (illness). Doesn't matter. She messed up, and now ... her documented bias is a hazard to a fair trial and she's got to go. I'm immovable on this and I believe she will recuse via request or on her own. If the D doesn't ask for her removal, I'll likely assume they are not so confident in their D strategy and want Gull on so they can have strong appeal strategy.) JMHO
I called it out. More than once. Or things about took on an emergency basis etc. Also false.
Now you are saying things from the actual ISC hearing that none of us heard at all (I am way behind in posts but I watched every live minute). I could be wrong as I did not get to watch a lot after etc. but I heard no such things. Questions? Yes there were questions asking what if this or that was the case and so on.. Not decisions or statements or opinions during the hearing. SCs don't do that. Right, no Decisions from the bench. But Apellate Panels do share their interpretation of relevant case law. ISC did that here w/ RA's case (thursday), they debate back and forth, interrupting parties' argument with refocused questions and challenging the parties interpretation of events under consideration - and from that subtext and tone one can infer consistent agreement or consistent doubt. IMO these inferences are critical for presenting counsel to catch and react to. The attorneys arguing take these loaded panel thoughts/statements/inferences very seriously and immediately react and adjust their approach or drop the argument. You can see this happening within the moments of the debate/argument - counsel is switching the examples, the support to their argument to make the same point (see RA's counsel's rebuttal). These hearings are live debates with direction changes and no one is asleep on their feet - each reaction requires an assumption of argument direction and the panels' thinking/preferences. It's tennis on a chess board. And that's why they call it argument/debate. JMHO
If I am wrong, link or correct me and I will own up to it and change opinion if deserved.
@Tresir seems to be asking the same.
See above. It's not about being wrong. It's about familiarity with the dynamics of logic and debate. JMHO
Are you a long termer from JT perhaps? Because it's hard to shake that cult like fear and influence from over there.
Is this supposed to be some sort of insult? I stop reading at insults.
Anyhow, I never mean personal offense No one believes this, in fact, personally offending others here - is your sport. and as I've said, I enjoy discussion and debate.
What is a new feeling for me is I have never felt sorrier for a perp I think guilty than for RA yesterday being stuck with these two. And that's a hard thing for me to say as I think him guilty of every charge including the new ones.
I have to get away from this thread, I haven't caught up and likely won't and spent a rare day off yesterday following and listening to the entire ISC hearing. it is being recommended that S C O I N not be used by the way. ISC works. Okie dokie.
The families and victims get so forgotten in it all, it is disgusting. I know Allen wasn't there, were the families? If they were not that is understandable as well.
I am sick to death of this b.s in what was a horrid two murders of young girls. It's the justice system. We are a moral society. There's many famous quotes about this. Here's one: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Abigail. Liberty. Abby. Libby. Williams. German.
RIP girls. Justice has become a big game but it will come.
They had a choice to go to hearing where if it was unfair and they did not get to tell their side, we all would have known and seen that. They bailed like scared mice. See below where ISC disagrees from the bench.
Imo Gull has covered for them or given them more chances than she should. LOL. This ain't kindergarten.
There is more afoot here. We may never hear it.
All they had to do was go to the hearing and state their defenses or yell for all the cameras to hear and show us all. See below where ISC disagrees from the bench.
No. They didn't want things or some things shared. Imo.
See below where ISC disagrees from the bench.
You know I can be pretty naive and stupidly soft but that's more close to home and used to be in cases too. Those blinders have in large part come off in both cases.It still doesn't tell one all because we joe public will never get the true story or all of it, but there's more here. Allen is not the victim but he is as far as his defense and the powers that be. Can't you see the dare, the dance, the carefulness and less than the total truth on either side?
I am cynical with a lot these days but it takes the blinders off big time.
She offered them the open court hearing which they refused. I still see no criticism of Gull in the SC decision. We don't have the Decision yet where the ISC will detail their decision parameters. They'll focus on Gull's decision, not Gull herself. What we did get Thursday was one page of Orders - SCI said they'd expedite orders and decision, orders first, so the underlying case in the lower court could get back on track.
It was an hour long. A timestamp is so I can listen to the Gull criticism you say is in there. The only bit I didnt hear well was the female testifying as there was a problem with the video when i watched that bit. So when was the Gull criticism? See below - one or 2 examples where ISC disagrees from the bench - there's many more.
Boy I laughed out loud sorry. You sure can turn things with a major bias. For someone who makes no decision until they have the evidence, sees trial, etc. Yup, made up me mind on this one thing: Gull's got to go. Did you hear, ISC opened that door while reversing her biased removal of the D? MOO
No offense of course. Again, no one believes this.
I said for days they were apt to remand this to the lower court and that's exactly what they did. It is pretty much all they did. Um. It's really not. And this is not JMHO, it's fact. We'll see in the decision language exactly what was decided and how.
There's many other things here that are going to be quite interesting to see. Like if Old D is really ready for trial with this lol "expedited" decision and doesn't try to delay it for one.
I also don't know how many people out there thought where RA is incarcerated would be something the ISC brought up or in. Of course not. Of course they did; the rights of humane and normal detention of the charged but presumed innocent and the right of a speedy trial go hand in hand. IMO, it was part of the Appellate's calculation of the necessity of quickly deciding this case to get the speedy trial back on track. I'm not messing with words, these rights are in the amendments discussed at this hearing.
You've got a real hard on at Gull, excuse my terminology. It's clear and it's obvious. I have one at the defense but nowhere near as bad as you do at Gull.
You interpret every single thing in a slanted way. We all interpret the world. Define slanted. Is that the different glasses part? Are you suffering under the delusion that I should interpret every single thing as you do? Alas, that is scientifically, environmentally and psychologically impossible - fact. The ISC did what they should. Part of me thinks they should have endorsed Gull's decision BUT remanding it with ALL in place was the more likely outcome to let it hash itself out and finish itself out.
Her new appt. may or may not have her leaving or recusing herself. The ISC did nothing to ensure she leaves the case so you are really out there with those thoughts and there is nothing that will force it. In fact proceeding with what she was willing to have televised against the two D attorneys that fateful day and the investigation results and all they have pulled may well finish it the right way if they don't hightail it out the back door. Yeah, the D is not stupid and the ISC understands that they're not stupid; ICS openly sympathetic with the D on that topic, IMO.
Imo the ISC did the Old D a slight favor they could have endorsed her decision but they more or less did but just a bit less. Now they can go back and deal with it as they were too scared to do (the D and actually vocally asked how to have time and get out without reporters). They can put their money or lack of it where their mouth is, or their eggs in the basket or whatever.
Let's see their outrageous next behavior or perhaps lack of it if they want to stay on the case.
It was sent back to finish playing out imo to the hearing it should have had. IMO, Nope.
There are actually people out there that don't understand why the ISC didn't do other things like address RA's place of holding and treatment, or the O thing. LMAO.
Anyhow, I don't see it as you do. Every filing by the defense with the ISC you thought was a win and a decision and wanted people to think so long before the ISC decided a thing. Influence I guess was your objective. What influence? There's like 4/5 people on this thread. Otherwise responded above. It's true that when the ISC decided to hear the 2nd Writ ... I was pretty certain the old D would be reinstated. Why? Because, IMO, the devil here is Gull. The crap she pulled under "judicial discretion". was outrageous; Judges are there to protect civil rights for goodness' sake, not decimate them.
No offense. Love the debate. I definitely disagree of course. What else is new?
I have no problem seeing Old D get in more trouble and yes let's see that SPEEDY feb trial! It's entertaining when you argue with yourself.
It's very interesting all the new charges yesterday coming down on RA AND Westerman in court as well. The P's timing wasn't coincidental, but I agree that the Westerman court date coinkidink was pretty funny.
***************************
The Chief Judge of ISC - from the appellate bench - at hearing - honed in on and JUMPED on this FALSE storyline from Gull's counsel Guttwein. She dresses Guttwein down: THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING GIVEN.
If you do go back to fast-forward review the taped hearing: Here's where to watch for this exchange:
During Guttwein arguments: Look for the back and forth happening between the Chief and Gull's attny Guttwein:
The question from the bench was something like:
wouldn't this have been easier if the judge had held a hearing? ... Guttwein starts answering:
the D rejected the offer of a hearing ... and the Chief Judge (the female) JUMPs in, interrupts Guttwein, and asks him if he'd even read the chambers transcript, because SHE had. The Chief Judge says it was abundantly clear from the chambers transcript: Gull explained she'd made up her mind and here's how the hearing will go if you choose to move forward with a hearing. Transcript shows Gull had prepared and then read to them the list of her complaints, described how she'd read them at the hearing in public w/ media there, and then announcing her decision to remove them. The ISC Chief Judge concludes -
that's not a hearing - not how a hearing works. IN has process as to how such a hearing is conducted. (I am paraphrasing. But it's all there.)
BTW, that's only one of at least 6 direct swipes at Gull - on various points. These criticism are now on the ISC transcript record.
And if you do choose to listen to Guttwein ... be sure to catch Guttweiin himself (Gull's counsel) praising B & R as being very experienced competent and highly respected defense attorneys - with agreement from the bench. Also listen for the SCI commenting as to the media presence and the D's effort to avoid a public shaming.
Another comment I took note of was one of the judges challenging Gull's description of what SHE called "incompetence" and instead suggested the word "insubordination" ... noting the important difference between the incompetence and insubordination ... with some derision.
It's only an hour, and if you have the chance to re-watch, there's more than the above debate won/loss points to tally as the arguments play out.
en.wikipedia.org
www.crimewatchers.net
, they weren't molested. 
