Straughn
27-03-2009, 08:58
http://www.adn.com/machete/story/736423.html
Tuesday Weber laid out what might be called "the E.T. defense," telling jurors that Rogers confessed to shooting three strangers, killing one of them, because aliens made him do it.
But aliens probably didn't make him do anything, so that was a lie, Weber pointed out, as was the rest of his confession. Weber used several slides of aliens, including E.T., to illustrate his points.
On Wednesday, Weber used his cross-examination of police officers to confirm for the jury that no aliens were spotted in the neighborhood on Dec. 3, 2007, the day Rogers was arrested.
I'm not sure just how this works, since from what i know about line-ups, you're looking more for the perp it was, not a bunch of folks in costumes that may not look anything like the actual perp.
Then it was time for Weber's cross examination, which went along routinely until he asked the detective if, the morning of the pursuit, he sensed that his radio was being jammed by an "other-worldly power."
No, the detective said.
And did he happen to see any vehicles not manufactured in Europe, Asia, or Detroit?
The detective paused. No, he said.
What about "entities" that did not "fit the pattern" of a normal human being?
(Straughn looks wistfully at NSG)
No, the detective said.
...
Weber took his turn, first with predictable questions about the pursuit. Then he inquired whether Glor saw any vehicles not manufactured on earth.
Glor said he didn't understand the question.
"Did you see anything that looked like an extraterrestrial vehicle, sir?" Weber asked.
No, Glor said.
In the gallery, a few people snorted. Jurors grimaced. Weber went on.
Did Glor ever suspect, as he was listening to Det. Cordie on the radio, that it wasn't Cordie at all but instead an "alien entity?"
No, Glor said.
The defense attorney pressed: did he see or hear any aliens?
No, Glor said, he did not.I'm not sure that this qualifies as anything other than testimony and perhaps circumstantial, but not this assertion:
aliens probably didn't make him do anything, so that was a lie
What do y'all think? This one a slam dunk? Is this case and manner of prosecution legit?
Tuesday Weber laid out what might be called "the E.T. defense," telling jurors that Rogers confessed to shooting three strangers, killing one of them, because aliens made him do it.
But aliens probably didn't make him do anything, so that was a lie, Weber pointed out, as was the rest of his confession. Weber used several slides of aliens, including E.T., to illustrate his points.
On Wednesday, Weber used his cross-examination of police officers to confirm for the jury that no aliens were spotted in the neighborhood on Dec. 3, 2007, the day Rogers was arrested.
I'm not sure just how this works, since from what i know about line-ups, you're looking more for the perp it was, not a bunch of folks in costumes that may not look anything like the actual perp.
Then it was time for Weber's cross examination, which went along routinely until he asked the detective if, the morning of the pursuit, he sensed that his radio was being jammed by an "other-worldly power."
No, the detective said.
And did he happen to see any vehicles not manufactured in Europe, Asia, or Detroit?
The detective paused. No, he said.
What about "entities" that did not "fit the pattern" of a normal human being?
(Straughn looks wistfully at NSG)
No, the detective said.
...
Weber took his turn, first with predictable questions about the pursuit. Then he inquired whether Glor saw any vehicles not manufactured on earth.
Glor said he didn't understand the question.
"Did you see anything that looked like an extraterrestrial vehicle, sir?" Weber asked.
No, Glor said.
In the gallery, a few people snorted. Jurors grimaced. Weber went on.
Did Glor ever suspect, as he was listening to Det. Cordie on the radio, that it wasn't Cordie at all but instead an "alien entity?"
No, Glor said.
The defense attorney pressed: did he see or hear any aliens?
No, Glor said, he did not.I'm not sure that this qualifies as anything other than testimony and perhaps circumstantial, but not this assertion:
aliens probably didn't make him do anything, so that was a lie
What do y'all think? This one a slam dunk? Is this case and manner of prosecution legit?