08-15-2023, 07:38 PM
(08-15-2023, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe go back and read the last couple of pages of this thread.
If Joe never brandished a gun then that's a whole other story, but it seems we're leaning toward Joe's innocence because the female was "not scared".
You highlighted "there was no jury" for the trial yet there is not one. The judge will decide Joe's fate. But what seems apparent from what has been reported about the testimony so far....If you are talking about the court of public opinion that is yet to be fully heard from
1) what has been pointed out is that she claimed fear in her testimony but not in her police statement. And that her own behavior indicated anger not fear. Those are salient points in deciding the veracity of her testimony. There are no witnesses to the actual incident so it will come down to who the judge believes is telling the truth Joe or the "victim"
2) there was no evidence presented, other than her testimony, of a gun being actually present.
3) based only on her testimony it is possible that Joe would also have a case of menacing against her as she initiated the 2nd encounter by continuing to follow him, pulling alongside him at a stop light, and yelling obscenities toward him. He would have no idea as to what her intent was and it was just as possible for him to believe that she had a weapon she planned to use.
I believe I also said that Joe testifies tomorrow so we will finally hear the story from his standpoint and will be able to make more judgment based on that. Right now, just based on what has been reported, I don't believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But that opinion very well may change after tomorrow when we hear what Joe has to say.
Winning makes believers of us all
