Member Since: February 13, 2007 Last Signed In: September 27, 2007 Profile Views: 4210 Blog Views: 82195 Brothers' attorneys face contempt hearing Judge: Brothers deserves to die Jury recommends Brothers should receive the death penalty VERDICT IN DEATH PENALTY No Verdict This Week Jury begins deliberations in Brothers penalty phase Defense attorney finishes closing argument Defense continues closing argument Defense attorney begins his closing argument Prosecutor finishes closing argument February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Defense has no further witnesses
Both attorneys said they had no further questions for Brothers.
Defense attorney Michael Gardina said he has no further witnesses. The jury is dismissed for the day. 17 comments from 8 users
1
posted by
countyork
on Apr 30, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Looking forward to rebuttal and summations. Unlike JFrancis who believes that the new witness is a liar I want to hear what he has to say.
posted by
jfrancais
on Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Who did I say was a liar?
posted by
jfrancais
on Apr 30, 2007 at 04:51 PM
I would like to hear what the witness has to say as well. Hopefully it is the "something concrete" I have been looking for.
posted by
anonymous
on Apr 30, 2007 at 05:41 PM
JF, if you want "the smoking gun", you aren't going to get it. But in this case, it's not needed.
posted by
jfrancais
on Apr 30, 2007 at 06:22 PM
I just want some evidence to directly link him to the crime. I think that would be fair. posted by
anonymous
on Apr 30, 2007 at 09:29 PM
Hey JF, if the guy is as innocent as you would like him to be, why would he lie about the accident, and the game, and the credit card, and the other 100 things he's lied about?
posted by
jfrancais
on Apr 30, 2007 at 09:50 PM
Evidence linking him to the crime would change my opinion of him regarding this case. I feel that the prosecution "lied" about the time of death to have a case and wanted their experts to lie. posted by
anonymous
on Apr 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
JF, you want to live in a perfect world. DIRECT evidence is not always possible. Refer to the Scott Peterson conviction. When this trial is over, and Vincent spends the rest of his life in prison, what will you say then? (I know, you will blame it on the D.A.).
posted by
riverrider
on Apr 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I agree with JF that I would love to have that "concrete" piece of evidence. But I think anonymous is right that all of the circumstantial evidence together goes beyond a preponderance of evidence. And what was that with his brother Troy, (who I never heard mentioned before) taking off before he testified? I mean, HE'S THE ALIBI !!!!!!!!! Why wouldn't the defense put him up on the stand first? It would go something like, "Hi, I'm Troy Brothers, and I was WITH my brother Vincent at the time his family was killed. See, here was our itinerary, here are videos of us buying gas, here's a video of us at a convenience store. And here's a deposition from a friend of mine that I introduced Vincent to while he was visiting me. (for the first time in nine years!!!)"
posted by
anonymous
on May 1, 2007 at 02:43 AM
Brothers gave a detailed account of "his" interactions at that accident. Of course, he had two years to study the facts- heck, he may even believe he was the driver that hit the boy by now. But we still have to wait until Friday to hear what happens. I wonder why Green did not bring in the driver and the boy's mom- to completely impeach Brothers. A plea deal? On five counts of murder involving three children- babies a grandmother and an grown woman? Yea, I'd like to see that happen. He can only plea insanity- and I actually think he has a good case for insanity. posted by
jfrancais
on May 1, 2007 at 06:04 AM
A pefect world would be nice, anon.I don't like the idea of people being convicted just because it "doesn't add up". I am all for this witness that can reportedly rebut Brothers' testimony. As much as I dislike the DA's Office, I have no problem with credible witnesses. By the way, I am curious of the Troy Brothers fiasco as well. Please put him on the stand so that Brothers' testimony can be rebutted. I don't think its fair to infer that since Troy is not there then Brothers is guilty.
posted by
Bakodude10
on May 1, 2007 at 07:00 AM
JF, you just don't get it. The defense didn't put Troy on the stand because he would have been shown to be a liar like his brother. the prosecutor subpenaed him to testify but he fled the state. If brothers is innocent, why did he lie about the accident? why wouldn't he have told the truth about where we was? Innocent people don't have to lie. posted by
meluvshoes
on May 1, 2007 at 08:04 AM
Amazing!!!!!! Jfrancais is under attack for wanting a fair trial!! What the heck? This is America! I didn't understand the first blogger and yesterday looked back over all the blogs to see exactly where jfrancais had said that the witness was a liar. Now I am reading all the subsequent blogs and wow the attacks are frequent. I think it is admirable that someone in Bakersfield wants to stand on the side of justice. The burden of proof is not on Vincent Brothers. Furthermore, I find it ironic that someone indicated that he has had several years to think up an alibi. Maybe, just maybe, he has had several years to think about how his life is ruined because he has been falsely accused by an agressive prosecutor. Where is the compassion for another human. Does the question ever cross your mind, what if he didnt do it? What if he is innocent? What if someone else killed this mans entire family?
posted by
jfrancais
on May 1, 2007 at 08:14 AM
Bakodude, you just don't get it. You do not yet know what Troy has to say. You are merely speculating. I am CURIOUS as to what he has to say (for the umpteenth time). I am sorry I have yet to jump to the conclusion that Brothers is guilty becuase he didn't save his receipts, account for all of his time, get a notarized letter of all the events during his trip, register his shoe prints and fingerprints with the proper authorites before this all took place. I know what a subpoena is and I don't think anyone can make an accurate assumption over who issued it to whom.
posted by
jfrancais
on May 1, 2007 at 08:31 AM
Meluvshoes, "attack" is a pretty accurate term. I thought we would more or less just state opposing positions and disagree with little banter now and then. The "attacks" are on the verge of being personal. Since I don't agree with dissenting opinions, I must have a criminal record (or be related to those who do), or I want all criminals freed since I don't care for the DA.
posted by
meluvshoes
on May 1, 2007 at 09:25 AM
jfrancais, you are soooo my people!!! The intelligence quota in Bakersfield isn't very high. They have to attack you because you string together proper sentences and use spell check. Don't take it personal. When this is over, you will still have your intelligence and they will still not have theirs. Let's hope that they are never the product of the overzealousness of the DA's office.
posted by
anonymous
on May 1, 2007 at 04:49 PM
"jfrancais, you are soooo my people!!! The intelligence quota in Bakersfield isn't very high. They have to attack you because you string together proper sentences and use spell check. Don't take it personal. When this is over, you will still have your intelligence and they will still not have theirs. Let's hope that they are never the product of the overzealousness of the DA's office."
If one is going to announce superior intellect, one should first check one's post.
Your fourth sentence should be corrected: "Don't take it personally." You must remember to correctly use your adverbs and adjectives. Also, you may have meant to say "intelligence quotient " instead of "intelligence QUOTA."
Signed,
A miserably ignorant Bakersfieldian
1
Our readers recommend: |