Shooting of jogger in GA

[jh9]

Perhaps what was legally able to be admitted to trial. American courtrooms are not about finding the truth, that's naive bullshit. They are about "proving" your narrative with the pieces you are allowed to bring into play (or keeping the other guy from proving his narrative, depending). Trials are often won or lost by keeping the other guy's pieces out and getting your pieces in. In a Murder trial, things posted online months or years before the incident in question are likely not going to be deemed as relevant. If I shoot you while you are trying to rob me, by feelings and opinions about your race or religion or whatever aren't particularly relevant. I can love or hate you but that doesn't change if the shoot was good or not. Now they are trying to prove a hate crime, and hate is now an element of the crime. Since you have to prove each element, things that were not relevant to a state Murder case are now very relevant and different pieces get admitted.

Always fascinating to see how the sausage is made.

[blues]

Always fascinating to see how the sausage is made.

Even when it makes it hard to swallow...

[JHC]

So during the murder trial the details were all "he might have used the N-word but we don't have it on tape" and technical minutiae on the legality of citizens arrest to... that. All of that. You could basically take any paragraph in that article and it would stand on its own as damning. Put it all together and how did none of that come out during the murder trial? Were they intentionally saving it for the separate, federal case?

One legal analysis I heard about that exact issue when the state trial wrapped up was that the prosecution team wanted to stick to the facts of the physical actions and not risk bringing into their case emotionally charged issues that don't drive towards a conviction for the physical actions executed. Sounded pretty shrewd to me. Not risking triggering a juror who might then decide it was a politically correct witch hunt or something it sounded like.

[BehindBlueI's]

One legal analysis I heard about that exact issue when the state trial wrapped up was that the prosecution team wanted to stick to the facts of the physical actions and not risk bringing into their case emotionally charged issues that don't drive towards a conviction for the physical actions executed. Sounded pretty shrewd to me. Not risking triggering a juror who might then decide it was a politically correct witch hunt or something it sounded like.

It would also be an avenue for appeals if there was a successful argument it was improperly admitted. When you've got a solid case there's no need for the extra table banging.

[jh9]

FWIW one of the shooter's high school classmates said it didn't surprise him a bit. In HS he would talk about blowing a nig#$@& head off if XYZ etc.

Well, looks like he didn't change much from high school. From the AJC link a bit earlier.

Weeks before Arbery’s death, Thomas sent McMichael a viral video showing a Black man playing a prank on a white man in a mall.

“I’d kill that (expletive) n-word,” Travis McMichael responded, Thomas testified.

“These thugs need to be taught a lesson,” he wrote. “I would beat those monkeys to death.”

Some people balking before all this came out about using the word "lynching". Not much left to balk at. Those hate crime charges coming down the pike look well earned.