...in raising objections to the prosecution's remarks. They are doing their job. They have to raise these issues to be sure they have the basis they need to proceed in appeal. There is a lot of ground for the defense attornies to cover in this case. The jury may find her guilty, I am not sure how they are going to put that together in a demand of conscience vs desperate measures by the State, but, they well do that. But, the defense attorneys have a lot of issues, from forensics to instrumentation to the gross inconsistencies across the board in prosecution testimony, etc. So, they have to raise these objections to uphold their point of contention in the case.
The defense attorneys aren't showboating or being difficult. They are doing what they have to do.
There is also the issue of 'electronic signature' in this matter. It didn't matter who was on the computer when there was a 'casual' word search. By casual I mean 'untrained.' The word search could have been conductecd 'at anyone's request.' In other words, if Mrs. Anthony was leaving the house and asked her daughter to seach issues of gardening and it lead to a search for curiosity that is not exactly what I would call pre-meditated content of a mind. So, the 'idea' that a casual word search on a computer is admissible in court to convict for a capital crime is a bit worrisome.
Electronic signatures when they are accompanied by identification and a secure internet is the making of some level of accuracy. But, there is nothing to say any secure 'electronic signature' is that of the actual signatory. The law has become enamored with the 'idea' of having electronic signatures as 'proof' of identity alone. That is not GOOD practice at all.
The defense attorneys aren't showboating or being difficult. They are doing what they have to do.
There is also the issue of 'electronic signature' in this matter. It didn't matter who was on the computer when there was a 'casual' word search. By casual I mean 'untrained.' The word search could have been conductecd 'at anyone's request.' In other words, if Mrs. Anthony was leaving the house and asked her daughter to seach issues of gardening and it lead to a search for curiosity that is not exactly what I would call pre-meditated content of a mind. So, the 'idea' that a casual word search on a computer is admissible in court to convict for a capital crime is a bit worrisome.
Electronic signatures when they are accompanied by identification and a secure internet is the making of some level of accuracy. But, there is nothing to say any secure 'electronic signature' is that of the actual signatory. The law has become enamored with the 'idea' of having electronic signatures as 'proof' of identity alone. That is not GOOD practice at all.
