Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MDC

Anything about the guy in Dallas shot dead in his own apartment by a cop?

Recommended Posts

So no motive?

It just doesn’t add up. Was she focking sh1tfaced or something? Otherwise I don’t see how this “accident” happens.

On the other hand, if there was motive it seems like it should be easy to establish.

The whole thing is weird. She looks untrustworthy to me though. Could easily be a dirty little psycho 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

So no motive?

It just doesn’t add up. Was she focking sh1tfaced or something? Otherwise I don’t see how this “accident” happens.

On the other hand, if there was motive it seems like it should be easy to establish.

The whole thing is weird. She looks untrustworthy to me though. Could easily be a dirty little psycho 

When it first happened there was speculation that she was hot for the dude and this was a jealousy thing.  I was surprised to hear she was banging her partner and there isn't any mention of the jealousy angle any more so maybe that didn't pan out.  But she shot very quickly without even announcing herself or trying to gauge the threat.   I read something yesterday, and I believe it was from someone on the police force she was fired from, who said she basically ignored all her training when she shot him.  I'm interested to see what else the prosecutor puts out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strike said:

When it first happened there was speculation that she was hot for the dude and this was a jealousy thing.  I was surprised to hear she was banging her partner and there isn't any mention of the jealousy angle any more so maybe that didn't pan out.  But she shot very quickly without even announcing herself or trying to gauge the threat.   I read something yesterday, and I believe it was from someone on the police force she was fired from, who said she basically ignored all her training when she shot him.  I'm interested to see what else the prosecutor puts out there.

It’s just such an odd occurrence. She ignored her training, well she wasn’t really a cop in that moment so maybe that’s understandable? But how’d she get the apartments mixed up especially with the huge red doormat?? Then you figure okay if that actually happened and she thought there was an intruder in her apartment maybe that’s reasonable. But she’s going in the apartment. Wouldn’t your instinct be to flee? Or if you’re a cop to retreat and set up perimeter or whatever?

Just none of it really adds up, which makes you think there was motive and another reason but then that should’ve been fairly easy to uncover I would think. Unless she’s just a total focking psycho which honestly looks quite possible.

Still, I predict she walks. No motive means no murder. Manslaughter maybe but if you believe her story she thought there was someone laying in wait for her in her own apartment then coming at her as she came through the door. If that were really truly the case I’d have a hard time finding manslaughter. Now like I said, I don’t believe her but apparently the prosecution has nothing to offer as far as an alternative version. They’re just saying well she shouldn’t of shot him anyways which seems like a stretch.

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t followed this much since the story broke. My initial assumption was that she was focking the guy and this was a sort of domestic dispute, or they had neighbor issues. It seems like that wasn’t the case.

Did they rule out drugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Still, I predict she walks. No motive means no murder. Manslaughter maybe but if you believe her story she thought there was someone laying in wait for her in her own apartment then coming at her as she came through the door. If that were really truly the case I’d have a hard time finding manslaughter. Now like I said, I don’t believe her but apparently the prosecution has nothing to offer as far as an alternative version. They’re just saying well she shouldn’t of shot him anyways which seems like a stretch.

:dunno:

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again today.  She can't walk.  Let's say I give her the benefit of the doubt that her story is true.  She THOUGHT someone was in her apartment and was a thread, and therefore she shot him.  She is clearly negligent in walking in to the wrong apartment, which created the situation whereby the victim was killed.  At the very least, I would convict her of "negligent homicide" or "criminally negligent manslaughter":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

There is just no way you walk in to someone else's place of residence, shoot them, and walk.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again today.  She can't walk.  Let's say I give her the benefit of the doubt that her story is true.  She THOUGHT someone was in her apartment and was a thread, and therefore she shot him.  She is clearly negligent in walking in to the wrong apartment, which created the situation whereby the victim was killed.  At the very least, I would convict her of "negligent homicide" or "criminally negligent manslaughter":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

There is just no way you walk in to someone else's place of residence, shoot them, and walk.

What crime(s) is she being tried for? Is she guilty of one or more of those specific crimes that is against the law in Texas? Thats what it comes down to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Strike said:

She can't walk.  She may not be guilty of murder but if you walk in to someone else's home and shoot them you're guilty of something.  It may be involuntary manslaughter or something of that nature but she HAS to be guilty of something.

I'll admit, I roughly remember the story and haven't really updated myself on it... just remember saying that if she's guilty, let her fry.

 

That said, if they're trying her for Murder 1 or Murder 2 (again, I didn't read up on the details, sorry), then the prosecution needs to prove WHY she did it.  She may certainly be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but you can't try her for M1 or M2 and come back with a guilty of IM at the end.  She's either guilty of why she's being tried for, or she's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

What crime(s) is she being tried for? Is she guilty of one or more of those specific crimes that is against the law in Texas? Thats what it comes down to.  

From a USA Today article:

Quote

The jury in the murder trial that began Monday will decide whether Guyer committed murder, a lesser offense such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, or no crime at all.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/23/amber-guyger-trial-dallas-police-botham-jean/2424278001/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strike said:

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again today.  She can't walk.  Let's say I give her the benefit of the doubt that her story is true.  She THOUGHT someone was in her apartment and was a thread, and therefore she shot him.  She is clearly negligent in walking in to the wrong apartment, which created the situation whereby the victim was killed.  At the very least, I would convict her of "negligent homicide" or "criminally negligent manslaughter":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

There is just no way you walk in to someone else's place of residence, shoot them, and walk.

I hear you but let’s assume her story is true (nothing to the contrary, as dubious as it may seem) and look at it from her perspective. She comes home to her apartment and finds that the door has been tampered with — remember, his wouldn’t shut/lock all the way so she could push it open. This would very easily look like a sign of a break-in. So now she’s on alert and has probably drawn her gun or at least has a hand on it as she enters the apartment. Suddenly some big guy is yelling and coming at her. Blammo.

I mean it’s not that crazy. You could second guess and say she should’ve done XYZ instead but I dunno, seems tough to convict on that.

Meanwhile the victim has done nothing wrong and was just sitting in his own focking apartment minding his own business. It’s a wild case.

And maybe we should mention race here. No I’m not saying she was racist or anything here so calm down. But if this was a presentable white guy in a Mr Rogers sweater saying “what’re you doing in here?!” maybe she reacts differently than a big black guy coming at her, which probably only reinforces her suspicion of a home invasion and increases her fear. Let’s just be honest there for a minute. But ultimately I’m not sure it legally matters other than it definitely ups the tragedy quite a bit and ought to be a teachable moment for folks.

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strike said:

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again today.  She can't walk.  Let's say I give her the benefit of the doubt that her story is true.  She THOUGHT someone was in her apartment and was a thread, and therefore she shot him.  She is clearly negligent in walking in to the wrong apartment, which created the situation whereby the victim was killed.  At the very least, I would convict her of "negligent homicide" or "criminally negligent manslaughter":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

There is just no way you walk in to someone else's place of residence, shoot them, and walk.

Agreed.

Absent any motive, it sounds like she fouled up royally. It resulted in the death of an innocent man, and she should be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'll admit, I roughly remember the story and haven't really updated myself on it... just remember saying that if she's guilty, let her fry.

 

That said, if they're trying her for Murder 1 or Murder 2 (again, I didn't read up on the details, sorry), then the prosecution needs to prove WHY she did it.  She may certainly be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but you can't try her for M1 or M2 and come back with a guilty of IM at the end.  She's either guilty of why she's being tried for, or she's not.

Lesser included offenses are usually on the table, so for example you charge murder they can find manslaughter instead. I say usually because it depends on the jurisdiction and all that.

But it is a classic prosecution move to overcharge to protect police officers. You set the bar at murder and there’s no way that’ll ever be met. The jury is now primed to acquit, whereas if you’d started with an actually reasonable charge you might’ve obtained a conviction. Not saying that’s what’s happened here but you have to wonder. I frankly see no basis for murder absent a different story altogether, which the prosecution is apparently not even going to attempt to present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I hear you but let’s assume her story is true (nothing to the contrary, as dubious as it may seem) and look at it from her perspective. She comes home to her apartment and finds that the door has been tampered with — remember, his wouldn’t shut/lock all the way so she could push it open. This would very easily look like a sign of a break-in. So now she’s on alert and has probably drawn her gun or at least has a hand on it as she enters the apartment. Suddenly some big guy is yelling and coming at her. Blammo.

I mean it’s not that crazy. You could second guess and say she should’ve done XYZ instead but I dunno, seems tough to convict on that.

Meanwhile the victim has done nothing wrong and was just sitting in his own focking apartment minding his own business. It’s a wild case.

And maybe we should mention race here. No I’m not saying she was racist or anything here so calm down. But if this was a presentable white guy in a Mr Rogers sweater saying “what’re you doing in here?!” maybe she reacts differently than a big black guy coming at her, which probably only reinforces her suspicion of a home invasion and increases her fear. Let’s just be honest there for a minute. But ultimately I’m not sure it legally matters other than it definitely ups the tragedy quite a bit and ought to be a teachable moment for folks.

:dunno:

I consider it negligence to enter the wrong apartment.  It's not malicious, but what percentage of people enter the wrong apartment?  Clearly, it's not something an average person would do, and it created the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, peenie said:

The problem is that even if it was a mistake, why is she allowed to kill him? Why is it okay to kill someone that isn't a threat to you? This is also what is wrong with police shootings. We are allowing people to kill because they feel like it. Of course they're going to say they felt threatened. That's what gets them off for murder. The man was either laying or sitting down on the couch. She shot her gun out of anger not fear. IF she is found guilty I doubt she'll serve more than a few months.

She shouldn't and isn't allowed to just kill people.  The problem is with the media and political outrage and the prosecution in these cases.  The politician's and media are out for blood and judiciously, that can't be had.  If the cops are involved in a fatal shooting, when the victim is black, the media and politicians won't settle for just, 'let's investigate and see if there was any wrongful shooting', and see where that goes.  No, they want Murder 1 or Murder 2 and want 15 years to life.  The problem is, you can't get that in 99.99% of these incidences.  There's almost always a level of justification... or a lack of information available to the public.  For an example, the "Hand's up don't shoot" case.  In the court of public opinion and the Democrats, the cops were guilty and should fry.  UNTIL, everything comes out and you find the kids friend lied.

 

Also, in Democrat led states, the politicians push their DA's for charges they know they can't win.  They do that so that they can tell their constituents that the cops are the bad guys so that they can get re-elected.  "White cops are racist" is the agenda that wins them elections.  Not justice.  Not safety.  Not anything else, but their status.

 

You'd probably see a LOT more convictions if the DA's would charge the cops with excessive force, wrongful death, or involuntary manslaughter... but the problem is that those guilty verdicts come with very minimal consequences.  Consequences that the media, politicians, and black people won't stand for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Lesser included offenses are usually on the table, so for example you charge murder they can find manslaughter instead. I say usually because it depends on the jurisdiction and all that.

But it is a classic prosecution move to overcharge to protect police officers. You set the bar at murder and there’s no way that’ll ever be met. The jury is now primed to acquit, whereas if you’d started with an actually reasonable charge you might’ve obtained a conviction. Not saying that’s what’s happened here but you have to wonder. I frankly see no basis for murder absent a different story altogether, which the prosecution is apparently not even going to attempt to present.

Ok, if they're going after the chair (for example), but will settle for involuntary manslaughter, then that's fine.  I don't see how they can get anything more than that though.  If there's enough evidence for reasonable doubt, to which I've read above in other posts, there's 0 chance they get murder 1 or 2.  UNLESS, they can provide a motive.  We'll see what happens.

 

Update:  Was going to update my post to Peenie based on your comments, when it got me thinking... do you really think in cases like this - high profile/race related (big political/media motivations), there actually is the opportunity for lesser charges?  I'm skeptical.  Though, being in Texas, I'm guessing those chances would be significantly higher than in a state like CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Strike said:

I consider it negligence to enter the wrong apartment.  It's not malicious, but what percentage of people enter the wrong apartment?  Clearly, it's not something an average person would do, and it created the situation. 

Well that’s where the defense is saying this has happened like 50 times in the same complex in recent years. Apparently the keys are electronic so it seems they’ve been able to pull exactly how many times the wrong electronic key has been tried in a door at the complex. Pretty clever, really 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Well that’s where the defense is saying this has happened like 50 times in the same complex in recent years. Apparently the keys are electronic so it seems they’ve been able to pull exactly how many times the wrong electronic key has been tried in a door at the complex. Pretty clever, really 

How big is the complex?  How many times do people unlock the doors electronically per day?  What percentage of all unlocks does 50 times constitute?   My guess is it's an infinitesimally small percentage of all door unlocks over the time frame they're examining to get 50 times.  Which would still make it negligent. People do negligent stuff all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Strike said:

There is just no way you walk in to someone else's place of residence, shoot them, and walk.

Someone might want to tell Gregory Vaughn Hill's family that. He was the one killed by cops in his home - the officers shot him thru his own garage door.

They walked.

And yes, she can still walk. The jury charge only says they will deliberate lesser chargers - doesn't say they have to find her guilty of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strike said:

How big is the complex?  How many times do people unlock the doors electronically per day?  What percentage of all unlocks does 50 times constitute?   My guess is it's an infinitesimally small percentage of all door unlocks over the time frame they're examining to get 50 times.  Which would still make it negligent. People do negligent stuff all the time.

From a "reasonable doubt" standpoint, I don't care what percentage of the times that constitute, the fact that it happens rather often is enough.  If you tell me that 1% of the time, a red apple falls from the tree, I'm always going to assume it's green.  But if you told me that 100 times last month, a red apple fell from the the tree (even though it still may be 1%), I'm not going to dismiss the potential of it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

From a "reasonable doubt" standpoint, I don't care what percentage of the times that constitute, the fact that it happens rather often is enough.  If you tell me that 1% of the time, a red apple falls from the tree, I'm always going to assume it's green.  But if you told me that 100 times last month, a red apple fell from the the tree (even though it still may be 1%), I'm not going to dismiss the potential of it happening.

so which is it..an infinitesimally small amount or rather often

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

so which is it..an infinitesimally small amount or rather often

I didn't say it had to be one or the other.  What I said is whether I dismiss the plausibility of it.  If something happens 100 times, even though that may be 1% over a certain frame, that's not a number you can't dismiss.  Simply, if a person walks by you and punches you 1 time over a hundred instances... are you likely to be afraid of that person punching you again?  Not likely.  But if said person punches you 100 times over a period of 10,000 occurrences, you will be more cautious.  No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

I think she is guilty of second degree murder.  Gets 15 years.  Does 4. 

I don't think that's likely.  M2 is usually a compromise (for lack of a better word), between M1 and voluntary manslaughter.  I have a hard time believing that VM is possibility at this point.  I think involuntary manslaughter is the most likely because I think the defense will likely prove that there was never any intent to kill the person whom she killed.  I think the prosecution will have a hard time combating that.  At least, that's where I see things now.  Obviously new information, can and likely will, present itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I didn't say it had to be one or the other.  What I said is whether I dismiss the plausibility of it.  If something happens 100 times, even though that may be 1% over a certain frame, that's not a number you can't dismiss.  Simply, if a person walks by you and punch you 1 time over a hundred instances... are you likely to be afraid of that person punching you again?  Not likely.  But if said person punches you 100 times over a period of 10,000 situations, you will be more cautious.  No?

I wasnt asking you to explain, more therein lies the question on that angle.  thats a funny analogy, after receiving 1 punch, a would be wary of every crossing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't think that's likely.  M2 is usually a compromise (for lack of a better word), between M1 and voluntary manslaughter.  I have a hard time believing that VM is possibility at this point.  I think involuntary manslaughter is the most likely because I think the defense will likely prove that there was never any intent to kill the person whom she killed.  I think the prosecution will have a hard time combating that.  At least, that's where I see things now.  Obviously new information, can and likely will, present itself.

She shot at him. That is intent. It wasn't premeditated.  It comes down to proving that she must have known she was in the wrong apartment.  Or at least should have known.  If you can't prove that, she probably walks from the murder and manslaughter charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Herbivore said:

I wasnt asking you to explain, more therein lies the question on that angle.  thats a funny analogy, after receiving 1 punch, a would be wary of every crossing.

I think it really helps the "reasonable doubt" defense.  In this case, you would be a help to the defense as he'd probably throw something out there like this and possibly play towards your sense of self preservation.  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

She shot at him. That is intent. It wasn't premeditated.  It comes down to proving that she must have known she was in the wrong apartment.  Or at least should have known.  If you can't prove that, she probably walks from the murder and manslaughter charges.

If she must’ve known she was in the wrong apartment then it was just straight murder, and I’d need a motive. Was she intending to rob the place? Had a beef with the guy? There focking or something? So far there’s nothing.

Even if we’re going with should have known, I sort of need an explanation. Was she hammered? I guess the prosecution is going with she was distracted from her horny sexting but I gotta say, that seems a little weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her attorneys said she will take the stand in her own defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strike said:

I consider it negligence to enter the wrong apartment.  It's not malicious, but what percentage of people enter the wrong apartment?  Clearly, it's not something an average person would do, and it created the situation. 

I am going to go out on a limb and say it is negligent to shoot someone without making sure that they are not just sitting in their own apartment.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I am going to go out on a limb and say it is negligent to shoot someone without making sure that they are not just sitting in their own apartment.  :dunno:

I agree. But people like Worms are saying she's justified if she just THOUGHT she was in her apartment.  And she may have thought that.  I watched the opening statements.  The prosecution is suggesting that she wasn't in a good state of mind due to a phone call she had as she was pulling in to her parking garage.  But I agree with you.  If you walk in to the wrong apartment and shoot the person who actually resides in that apartment it is at least negligence and there have to be consequences.  Throw in the fact that she was a cop who's training says that if you come upon a burglar you should take cover, try to contain them, and call for backup.  She violated her own professional training. 

IMO she did think it was her apartment and burst in with the intent to shoot anyone she thought was breaking in.  Unfortunately, she was in the wrong apartment and shot a legal resident.  Then, she was a selfish b*tch who cared more about her life being impacted by this mistake than about the mistake itself.  Fock her.  She can rot in prison.

Some other random notes I made watching the prosecution's opening statement:

- Two bullets.  One missed him.  The other entered him above his heart, with a downward trajectory, goes through his heart, and comes out far below the height it went in.  This indicates he was getting up when she shot him or he was down in a cowering position.  He was not a threat at that point.

- 911 call.  Not once does she indicate he was a threat but she says 19 times he was in her apartment.  

- She texted her partner multiple times while he died.  She was outside the apartment when the police showed up, not inside trying to help the guy she shot.  She cared more about what this meant to her life than about the guy dieing on the floor.  

- She deleted evidence from her phone in the days after the shooting.  Why would she do that if this was just an innocent mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

Her attorneys said she will take the stand in her own defense.

Saw this.  Not sure if she's insisting on it or her defense is a little desperate, but it's usually considered a bad move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Strike said:

Saw this.  Not sure if she's insisting on it or her defense is a little desperate, but it's usually considered a bad move.

Yup.  My guess is that they will wait for the prosecution to rest and see if she needs to testify.  Not sure what sort of rebuttal witnesses she will have otherwise.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard it was more of a suggestion that she might take the stand. So sorta hedging their bets.

To be clear, I think it’s possible she’s convicted of involuntary manslaughter (that’s negligent homicide). Hell she could be convicted of worse for all I know—it’s a crapshoot at the end of the day. But personally I am going to guess she’s acquitted. To me, if you believe her story then it’s a tragedy. And while I don’t necessarily believe her story it seems the prosecution isn’t going to put forward any real alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I heard it was more of a suggestion that she might take the stand. So sorta hedging their bets.

To be clear, I think it’s possible she’s convicted of involuntary manslaughter (that’s negligent homicide). Hell she could be convicted of worse for all I know—it’s a crapshoot at the end of the day. But personally I am going to guess she’s acquitted. To me, if you believe her story then it’s a tragedy. And while I don’t necessarily believe her story it seems the prosecution isn’t going to put forward any real alternative.

I believe most of her story and still think she's guilty.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think it really helps the "reasonable doubt" defense.  In this case, you would be a help to the defense as he'd probably throw something out there like this and possibly play towards your sense of self preservation.  😀

I think the walking into someone elses house kind of hurts self defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I heard it was more of a suggestion that she might take the stand. So sorta hedging their bets.

In his opening statement, her attorney (to the jury) said,

"You will hear from Amber, you will get to know Amber Guyger. You will get to know the hard worker, the young woman, who worked her way to the Crime Response Team - and made a mistake."

Technically they did not say she "will testify" - but it sure sounded like it to me. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strike said:

Saw this.  Not sure if she's insisting on it or her defense is a little desperate, but it's usually considered a bad move.

Yea, I'm not sure that's a good idea either.

Call it what you want - the jury consists of 5 blacks, 5 Latinos/Asians and 2 whites.......... does she really think she's gonna connect with them - really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive testified in and witnessed quite a few felony cases.  Ive barely ever seen a defendant testify and it ended up going well for defense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

In his opening statement, her attorney (to the jury) said,

"You will hear from Amber, you will get to know Amber Guyger. You will get to know the hard worker, the young woman, who worked her way to the Crime Response Team - and made a mistake."

Technically they did not say she "will testify" - but it sure sounded like it to me. :dunno:

Other than the very first phrase none of that necessarily even implies she’ll testify. The first phrase can be taken that way but they can just as easily say they meant the 911 tape and the like. I think they’re keeping their options open, neither saying she will testify nor giving the impression she won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×