A list of puns related to "Direct examination"
I'm channeling MATTHEW RUSSELL LEE from Inner City Press on Twitter.
Follow him on Twitter - https://twitter.com/innercitypress
Also consider supporting his independent reporting for as little as $5 per month: https://www.patreon.com/MatthewRussellLee
Judge Nathan: Jurors, you will hear what the witness' mother said. That is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but for the impact on the witness. You may proceed.
AUSA: What did your mother say?
Jane: That I should be grateful for their attention.
AUSA: Did you tell your siblings about the abuse?
Jane: No. I was ashamed. And I had a manic-depressed mother who didn't know how to cope. [sobs]
It seemed hopeless.
Jane: I spoke to my school guidance counselor, who then called my mother. My mother told me, You don't talk about what happens at home and embarrass us.
AUSA: Jane, what kind of work do you do now?
Jane: I am still an actor. I got work in LA. But I didn't know how to trust, how to reciprocate.
AUSA: When did you stop being in touch with Jeffrey Epstein?
Jane: In 2002. I fell in love with someone.
Jane: Epstein kept calling me and saying he wanted to see me, that I needed to be grateful to him, that my mother was living in one of his apartments. Do you want me to continue?
AUSA: Was that the last time?
Jane: Yes.
AUSA: Later did you tell the man I'll call Matt about Epstein?
Jane: Yes. Not in detail. But I did. By then you saw Epstein on the TV all the time. He had been arrested.
AUSA: Did the FBI interview you in September 2019?
Jane: Yes.
Jane: May 2019.
AUSA: Did you sue Ghislaine Maxwell?
Jane: Yes. In 2020.
AUSA: And the Epstein Victims' Fund?
Jane: Yes. They awarded me $5 million. Of that, I got approximately $2.9 million.
AUSA: Would the verdict in this case impact that?
Objection!
Sidebar.
They're back.
AUSA: Would a verdict here impact that?
Jane: No.
Judge Nathan: This is not a legal opinion.
AUSA: Why do you want to be anonymous? J
Jane: Because I work in Hollywood and victim shaming is still the norm.
AUSA: No further questions.
Judge Nathan: Ms. Menninger you may cross examine.
Menninger: You waited 20 years to complain, correct?
Jane: Correct.
Menninger: Two full deca
... keep reading on reddit ➡I'm channeling MATTHEW RUSSELL LEE from Inner City Press on Twitter.
Follow him on Twitter - https://twitter.com/innercitypress
Also consider supporting his independent reporting for as little as $5 per month: https://www.patreon.com/MatthewRussellLee
Final segment before end of Day 3, it's Victim Jane's ex-boyfriend "Matt," who uses a pseudonym.
AUSA Moe: Did they tell you about a women who was involved?
Matt: Yes.
AUSA: Did she give the woman's name?
Matt: No. AUSA: What was her demeanor like when Jane told you about Jeffrey Epstein?
Matt: Shame.
AUSA: What did Jane tell her mother?
Matt: That the money was not free. That --
AUSA: Don't say what the mother said, just what Jane said.
Matt: Jane told her mother that the money was not free and that it should not have been allowed.
AUSA Moe: Did you learn Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested.
Matt: Yes. On the news. I asked Jane, is that the woman you told me about? And she said Yes.
AUSA: No further questions.
Then Maxwell's lawyer: No cross [!]
Next witness: Daniel Vesselsen of Interlochen
AUSA: Where is Interlochen, Michigan.
Vesselsen: Near Traverse City.
AUSA: How do you keep fundraising records?
Vesselsen: SalesForce.
AUSA: We offer GX 744 under seal. Now GX 741.
Vesselsen: A letter to Mr. Epstein about the scholarship lodge, how much he'd give
AUSA: What's this?
Vesselsen: The lodge formerly known as the Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge.
[Note: It was definitely time for a name change]
Now at 4:59 pm, cross examination starts.
Maxwell's lawyer: You don't have records for the individual and the individual's siblings, correct?
Vesselsen: Correct.
Maxwell's lawyer: Mr. Epstein certainly was a major donor, correct?
Vesselsen: Yes.
And with that, Vesselsen is done.
Judge Nathan: Sorry we're 2 minutes late. Have a good night.
Clerk: All rise!
If so, what is the limit, and is it imposed by pre-existing rules or by the judge or some other way? I'm in Cook County Illinois.
In view of KZ's recent Motion, I've provided excerpts from Bobby Dassey's testimony. By this, I don't in any way mean to indicate that I think Bobby Dassey had anything to do with TH's death, only that his testimony may -- or may not -- contain some indications that he was coached more than "prepared", and/or that he may have hedged his answers to some questions.
Bobby Dassey testimony. Direct examination by Ken Kratz: Q On October thirty-first , 2005, who all lived in your home? A My mom, my step-dad, and my two younger brothers. Q What were the names of your younger brothers? A Blaine and Brendan. Q Blaine and Brandon? A Brendan.
Bobby later says that Bryan lived with his girlfriend. But Bryan himself indicated that he divided his time between the two places, but kept most of his clothes at home. And the stepdad-- Tom Janda -- did not live there on October 31, surely, if Barb was openly dating Scott Tydach.
Q On October thirty-first of 2005, could you tell the jury if you were home during the daytime hours ? A Yes, I was. Q And how late, or how long were you home until? A I was home until 2:30 that day. Q What were you doing before 2:30? A I was sleeping. Q When you say 2:30,,, are you talking about the afternoon or morning? A In the afternoon. Q To your knowledge, Bobby, was anybody else at home with you? A No.
It is, perhaps, interesting that Bobby says his stepfather still lived there on October 31 -- clearly not true -- but remembers with perfect clarity that he was at home until 2:30 that day and that he was sleeping before 2:30.
A A vehicle had drove up, and started taking pictures of the van. Q All right. Let's back up just a minute. Were you still sleeping? Or did you wake up? A I was up by 2:30, yeah. Q At 2:30, did you see something? A Yeah. Q What did you see? A I seen a vehicle pull up in our driveway. Q Bobby, could you describe that vehicle for the jury please? A It was a light green SUV, like a teal, color. Q How do you know that it was about 2:30 in the afternoon? A Because I was going hunting that night, So that was the time I wanted to get up. I got up at two. Q All right - From which way did this brue or teal SUV drive in, as you were looking out the window? A Toward the west it would be. Q Can you telt the jury please from which direction your uncre's trailer is from your house? A The wesr, Q Did you know what kind of SUV it was? A Not at the time.
*Is it at all interesting or notable that he says "a ve
... keep reading on reddit ➡The RAV and how it was handled is, perhaps, the most intriguing and puzzling evidence in this case. From PS's dramatic testimony about how she found it, to the actions of LE at ASY (covering and uncovering it), to how it was transported, to what happened after it arrived at the State Crime Lab in Madison -- it's a mystery in and of itself. The testimony of Groffy, the state lab photographer who was summoned Sunday morning, November 6, 2005, to photograph it, is, I think, particularly interesting and somewhat mindboggling. I've included excerpts from his testimony, both Direct, by Gahn and Cross, by Buting. I've removed the line numbers for greater readability.
Direct examination by Gahn, who is asking Groffy about the photos he took: A. State's Exhibit 291 is a photograph of the interior of the RAV4 looking at part of the driver's side, I guess you would call it, instrument panel, near the ignition switch. Q. And is this photograph -- is that photograph represented up on the big screen? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Groffy, I would like to ask you, is there anything about this photograph that you did any further processing of this vehicle with? A. Yes, the area that shows the red stain, I did a presumptive test on that area. Q. And what is a presumptive test? A. This is a presumptive test for the presence of blood. It's known as phenolphthalein. Q. Could you describe a little more for the jurors just how that stain appeared to you. A. It was a reddish color stain on the dash. Q. You did the presumptive test for blood? A. Yes, I did. Q. I'm sorry, sir, what were the results for that? A. It was positive. Q. Next exhibit, please.
First, I was shocked that the state lab photographer, who describes his job with the lab as taking photographers or examining images, did presumptive tests for blood. Why? Is this normal procedure? For a photographer to swab stains that clearly look like blood (are red in color) to make sure they are blood before photographing them? I found this incredible. As I've said elsewhere, it's not as if he was in a tiny county with limited resources; he was a state man, attached to the state lab. You'd think they could and would get a lab person in to do these presumptive tests. But the larger question is why do the presumptive test for blood before photographing these stains? Had they not been blood, would he not have photographed them? It seems even more incomprehensible later when Groffy testifies (see testimony below
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hi! I’m new here! I just wanted to ask for some kinda life advice, I was recently diagnosed with autism and I’m 18 and I live in the uk, I really struggle to express things in words and also to understand other people’s descriptions of things, I know medical advice is not allowed on here but I wasn’t sure if that fit this since it is about what services are available rather than an actual condition, I was wondering if there is any sort of help provided for people with autism when it comes to breast examinations (checking for cancer) , I know that they are very important but I worry a lot and I can’t seem to understand if it is something to be concerned about (I would be at the doctors every day if I made an appointment every time I was worried about something I’ve found) im asking here because I wondered if there was a specific thing where you can have regular (monthly maybe?) exams from an actual doctor if you are not capable of doing it yourself, I’m sorry if this is something that you cannot answer here, if you can’t then does anybody have any links to information that might help me, I did try to search it but like I said earlier I struggle to put things into words so couldn’t find anything, I would ring up my doctor and ask but I’m extremely anxious and cannot talk to people in formal situations (like meetings and appointments, even emails and letters) so I wondered if anyone here had any helpful advice, thanks x
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
I mean you would have to be Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple and Perry Mason all rolled into one to decipher the rat's nest of ancient hearsay accounts and circumstantial evidence that Christians call "proof".
If Jesus is the living God it's remarkable how much Christians rely on the writings of people who have been dead for 2,000 years to know about him. Christians don't say, "I believe in the Bible because Jesus came to me and told me he was God." Christians say, "Jesus is God because I believe what is written in the Bible is an accurate depiction of historical events". Then they brag about the "reliability" of the text and tell us that we should perceive it as they do.
Why... it's almost as though Jesus were dead or something. It's almost as though Jesus is not here anymore and all he left us to sort things out was his Last Will and New Testament.
In terms of arriving at a conclusion, why did the disciples have the Living God while we have the dead letter?
I guess it's because Jesus is dead.
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R-PA]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R-PA] is a member of the committee.
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
2 cosponsors are on that committee.
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.