However, I'm thinkin, if the defense added at the end of each cross, "and you see, this lacuna/contradiction/shiftiness in your testimony is further proof that you are in on a conspiracy to cover up a homicide in your family/circle of friends," then their posture would also seem ridiculous. Yet that IS what they are "saying," albeit only explicit in the opening argument.
Yes, I went into this completely ambivalent and have been impressed by the defense's ability to highlight the conspiracy in a classy way and without coming across as absurd.
The defense is killing it. I've only had enough time to watch/read recaps, but it's enough to make me wonder why the Commonwealth is trying her at all with very little to go on.
Can't wait until Tuesday morning for Jen McCabe vs Alan Jackson!
I'm currently wondering if the defense will use the audio from John's voice mail where you can hear Jen calling 911 and then calling her sister right afterwards. So many things to confront Jen McCabe on!
Fantastic way to present this! Excellent summary of the case so far, and the boxing metaphor fits so well with you. Very well done, Andrea, and thank you! Also really enjoying your livestreams as well.
Who needs fiction with cases like this? So glad I didn’t know the evidence before Higgins’ testimony on Day 17 because the turning point wouldn’t have been as entertaining. His testimony was a mind-f*ck because he seemed so credible at the outset (even to this skeptic). If you’re not paying too much attention, as would (sadly) be the case with any juror, this guy is perfectly likeable and believable at first. I won’t comment on appearance or KR’s past beliefs about his appeal, as this wouldn’t be polite, but look at his perfectly crafted facial expressions (though he doesn't blink) and listen to that perfect tone. He sustains eye contact, but not so sustained that he appears to be seeking validation. He’s self-assured but not arrogant. He even seems vulnerable (i.e., looking for “the real thing,” a text that probably elicited an “awwww” from female jurors). Jackson actually looked like the bad guy when he started man-handling the witness at first, which might have seemed unjustifiably aggressive to the jury. After all, it wasn’t that obvious whether Karen actually ‘ghosted’ him.
Yet as it turns out, Higgins is a master of deceit and the way Jackson undressed him was nothing short of a work of art. At the same time, Jackson managed to remind us (indirectly) how Karen was a victim of John's neglect, and also how Karen was perhaps taken advantage of (the selfless caregiver). Or did the prosecution do all his by introducing these text messages? Can the prosecution be that short-sighted? Could a jury be made to believe Karen killed John because she had a crush on some dude? It seems this could be the only reason the prosecution would introduce those text messages (apart from the shaming of an 'aggressive' woman--you seriously think this will land in Canton Massachusetts?).
Were it not for the constant intervention of Aunt Bev, this case would have been all but wrapped up on Day 17. So glad Andrea pointed out how Higgins was actually looking at the judge to be 'saved' when under attack. Apart from this, her harassment of the defense's questions such that he needs to guess at the exact form she's expecting... it's unbearable. Has anyone here ever seen a more obvious case of judicial bias? I can't think of a public trial in which this has been more obvious. Despite her inherent unlikeability, I actually find myself embarassed for her.
Cannot wait to see the rest, in light of Andrea's foreshadowing of the evidence yet to come.
That's interesting ... I've been waiting to hear about where John's phone was since none of the first responders mentioned finding it on him.
However, I'm thinkin, if the defense added at the end of each cross, "and you see, this lacuna/contradiction/shiftiness in your testimony is further proof that you are in on a conspiracy to cover up a homicide in your family/circle of friends," then their posture would also seem ridiculous. Yet that IS what they are "saying," albeit only explicit in the opening argument.
Yes, I went into this completely ambivalent and have been impressed by the defense's ability to highlight the conspiracy in a classy way and without coming across as absurd.
I keep going back to the statement of facts and the video evidence of Karen drinking that never materialized.
It's a promise that needs to be kept!
The defense is killing it. I've only had enough time to watch/read recaps, but it's enough to make me wonder why the Commonwealth is trying her at all with very little to go on.
Can't wait until Tuesday morning for Jen McCabe vs Alan Jackson!
I'm currently wondering if the defense will use the audio from John's voice mail where you can hear Jen calling 911 and then calling her sister right afterwards. So many things to confront Jen McCabe on!
Fantastic way to present this! Excellent summary of the case so far, and the boxing metaphor fits so well with you. Very well done, Andrea, and thank you! Also really enjoying your livestreams as well.
This is so well written!! 👏 Now I'm clear on what's transpired so far in the trial AND I've learned so much about boxing! 🥊⚖🥊Thank you Andrea!
Who needs fiction with cases like this? So glad I didn’t know the evidence before Higgins’ testimony on Day 17 because the turning point wouldn’t have been as entertaining. His testimony was a mind-f*ck because he seemed so credible at the outset (even to this skeptic). If you’re not paying too much attention, as would (sadly) be the case with any juror, this guy is perfectly likeable and believable at first. I won’t comment on appearance or KR’s past beliefs about his appeal, as this wouldn’t be polite, but look at his perfectly crafted facial expressions (though he doesn't blink) and listen to that perfect tone. He sustains eye contact, but not so sustained that he appears to be seeking validation. He’s self-assured but not arrogant. He even seems vulnerable (i.e., looking for “the real thing,” a text that probably elicited an “awwww” from female jurors). Jackson actually looked like the bad guy when he started man-handling the witness at first, which might have seemed unjustifiably aggressive to the jury. After all, it wasn’t that obvious whether Karen actually ‘ghosted’ him.
Yet as it turns out, Higgins is a master of deceit and the way Jackson undressed him was nothing short of a work of art. At the same time, Jackson managed to remind us (indirectly) how Karen was a victim of John's neglect, and also how Karen was perhaps taken advantage of (the selfless caregiver). Or did the prosecution do all his by introducing these text messages? Can the prosecution be that short-sighted? Could a jury be made to believe Karen killed John because she had a crush on some dude? It seems this could be the only reason the prosecution would introduce those text messages (apart from the shaming of an 'aggressive' woman--you seriously think this will land in Canton Massachusetts?).
Were it not for the constant intervention of Aunt Bev, this case would have been all but wrapped up on Day 17. So glad Andrea pointed out how Higgins was actually looking at the judge to be 'saved' when under attack. Apart from this, her harassment of the defense's questions such that he needs to guess at the exact form she's expecting... it's unbearable. Has anyone here ever seen a more obvious case of judicial bias? I can't think of a public trial in which this has been more obvious. Despite her inherent unlikeability, I actually find myself embarassed for her.
Cannot wait to see the rest, in light of Andrea's foreshadowing of the evidence yet to come.