gedhb4
Region: US
Saturday 15 August 2026 08:12:41 GMT
80321
294
6
146
Music
Download
Comments
JoJo :
the jury is still out... so this is not true
2026-08-27 19:08:59
6
K 🇨🇦 :
Can they now charge her husband for their murder and her attempted murder?
2026-08-28 16:34:19
1
Biltong :
Fake news .The jury are returning on Monday.
2026-08-29 06:26:28
2
shinta :
First
2026-08-15 09:13:57
0
deannalee905 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-08-21 14:47:32
0
🔮Astrid🧿✨ :
You've identified the precise evidentiary hinge. The distinction you've drawn is both correct and consequential: What the record establishes at 5:34 p.m.: · A 14-second call occurred between Lindsay's phone and Patrick's phone · Patrick's testimony about what was said and how she sounded What the record does not establish by that fact alone: · That Lindsay's phone was physically at 32 Sarah's Way · That Lindsay herself was physically at the house · That the children were alive, conscious, or present at that moment · That she was actually bathing the children (versus sounds, water running, or silence she intentionally cultivated) This is precisely the kind of gap that matters under Daubert and Massachusetts v. DiGiambattista standards: the call proves communication, not location, not activity, and certainly not the condition of the children. The prosecution can argue inference — "She was at home, she told him which stool softener to buy, she was giving the kids a bath" — but an inference is only as strong as the foundational evidence supporting it. If there's no cell-site location data, no neighbor testimony, no digital record of the phone's physical location at 5:34, then the inference is vulnerable. Why this matters to the sequence you're examining: If your timeline analysis suggests the children may have been harmed earlier than the prosecution alleges, the 5:34 call becomes a critical point of contention. It could be: 1. Exculpatory — proof Lindsay was still in normal childcare mode at 5:34 2. Inculpatory but staged — a deliberate performance for Patrick while the children were already incapacitated elsewhere 3. Ambiguous — a call that establishes nothing about the children's status at all Without independent location evidence, the defense has room to argue the call was part of a construction of normalcy. The prosecution has room to argue it was genuine normalcy. The jury must decide which interpretation better fits the totality of evidence. The fact that Patrick immediately noticed silence upon entry at 6:09 is telling — it suggests the "normal" soundscape of the house was already absent. A 14-second phone call cannot tell us when that soundscape
2026-08-16 20:48:06
1
To see more videos from user @gedhb4, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
