|Viewing Single Post From: Weekly Discussion|
|luvpumpkns||Nov 4 2008, 08:46 AM|
phoenix, i get what you are saying, but think about it this way--bo was the only person that spoke at the trial. ej made one opening sentence, and then was not allowed to speak again. even at bail hearing such as this one, he would have spoken last, in other words, he would have had a chance to provide a rebuttal to what bo said. bo wouldn't be allowed to be a character witness as the arresting officer. i also don't think her crimes against victor and colin would be admissible. she was never charged in either attempted murder--and most importantly, she was never charged for the crime of 'lying about being married to trent.' the judge can't consider that because victor never pressed charges for fraud. he just got his money back from her and dropped the whole thing. now i suppose if they could round up colin and victor, they could be character witnesses testifying to her flight risk, but that's about it. evidentiary-wise, the ONLY thing that the judge has to go on is a torn marriage license and a note from trent. that is not nearly enough to begin thinking of denying bail. |
the way the trial was run, bo could have made up any old thing about nicole and the judge would have considered it, and that, to me, is just a total mockery of the legal system. i usually do take this kind of stuff with a grain of salt, but like i said before, this was a bit over the top, even for a soap. i don't mind that they railroaded nicole--i just want someone to acknowledge it at some point, and not act as if this trial was fair in any way.
and don't even get me started on the D.A. that person has got to be the worst prosecutor known to man. you definitely don't drop a suspect who was caught with the murder weapon or has the victim's blood all over their shirt because you have another with weak circumstantial evidence against her.
Edited by luvpumpkns, Nov 4 2008, 08:47 AM.
|Weekly Discussion · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|