Law Details of Fani Willis’ alleged ‘improper’ relationship with prosecutor may go public as judge unseals his divorce case

andnowweknow said:
The "it isn't fair crowd" is gonna be aggrieved again.
Click to expand...

i bet they still think they have a shot at this. somebody really needs to tell them that speculation is not admissable as evidence and holds no merit within any court in the land. the defense didn't even come close to reaching the high bar that needs to be met in order to have a DA removed. they never really even got their feet off the ground!

bradley's testimony will be stricken, not only because he lied to the judge about evidence but he legit just came out and admitted to the courts that his entire testimony was based on nothing more than speculation, and he literally said on the stand, in his own words, and also using versions of it several times, “I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started." and "I was speculating." - that was the defense teams star witness handing them a game over.

and on top of that, all those thousands of texts and calls they were talking about in court regarding the CellHawk analysis of the phone records they received from AT&T.....that's all speculation too. sure they can speculate that fani and wade were involved in a relationship at the time based on a large amount of texts or calls between each other, but for all we know, they could have been talking about work, or the green bay packers, or the newest pair of MySlippers that mike lindell is selling. or thousands of texts about the latest episode of spongebob. until they unveil what was actually contained in those texts and calls, all of that is considered nothing more than speculation. that doesnt prove any kind of intimate relationship. they weren't able to show the courts a single word that was spoken between them during those calls and texts, and their location data wasn't able to directly pinpoint them directly to the same unit of an apartment building together. and for all we know fani willis could have been making nathan wade a sandwich while wade was laying pipe to some other woman on the 2nd floor of the apartment or in the house across the street. they have no idea what they were talking about in those texts and calls, they could have been talking about anything. all they could do with that data is speculate, which does not cut it in court.

they still weren't able to prove the timeline of the relationship because they didn't have the actual contents of any of those texts or voice calls and they weren't able to go to the judge and say look.....we know they were involved in a relationship at this precise time and day, and here is the evidence that proves it..." nope. once again, all they could do is speculate. speculation has no merit in a court of law.

the judge didn't even entertain the defendants when asked last monday for a thursday hearing on all that cellhawk data and phone logs to try to get it admitted into evidence and delay the closing arguments so that they could present them and make their argument during trial. once the judge seen that they didn't actually have the contents of those texts or calls and it was all just an argument based on speculation, that was it for that argument and that trial was pretty much a wrap, even though it had already exploded after bradley took the stand and literally told the judge that he didnt know anything about the timeline of their relationship or when it began and everything he said before was all just speculation.

alright thats about enough of a wall for me. i think i'm done until mcaffee comes back with the decision. at most he will just conclude that there was at one point a relationship between them and they didnt disclose it to the state and because of that he'll refer it to the state bar for them to hand out a disciplinary fine and be done with it. but as far as removing her from the rico case is concerned, this case was a nothingburger. there is a really high threshhold to meet when trying to remove a DA or even a judge from a case, and the defense didn't come anywhere close to meeting it.
 
Last edited:
Tank in even deeper doo doo.



New witness spills the beans.
 
N13 said:
There's a new witness coming forward to reveal that the Wade/Willis affair began before he was hired by Willis.
Click to expand...

I am thinking the judge will say he has already seen enough and rule without the new witness. Didn’t Trump and company also want like 2 other witnesses on Friday also, but judge put it off for now? There was a male lawyer or Lara legal that also can testify they heard several discussions regarding wade and Willis relationship’s prior to Wade being appointed
 
  • Like
Reactions: N13
cottagecheesefan said:
I am thinking the judge will say he has already seen enough and rule without the new witness. Didn’t Trump and company also want like 2 other witnesses on Friday also, but judge put it off for now? There was a male lawyer or Lara legal that also can testify they heard several discussions regarding wade and Willis relationship’s prior to Wade being appointed
Click to expand...
hearsay isn't evidence. <45>
 
cottagecheesefan said:
Defense team tried to enter this into the record today and will be filing to enter. But a waiter in Fulton says he saw Wade and Bradley having a meal together 5 weeks ago, contrary to their testimony, and willing to testify if needed



At this point, I think the judge’s line of questioning regarding if Willis integrity is called into question with this case, are all her cases now able to be questioned? This is such a cluster fuck by Willis and Fulton in general.
Click to expand...

I mean yes it should be. Some shithead will walk sadly but also some will get out that she shouldn’t have out away
 
Another witness comes forward. They have filed a motion to reopen and accept the new evidence.

My guess is, they won't allow the new testimony, but the judge will know that this is the second person coming forward to directly counter Willis and Wade's testimony. The judge knows they committed perjury.

 
AWilder said:
hearsay isn't evidence. <45>
Click to expand...
this is the second time you have incorrectly labeled evidence in this trail as "hearsay". Why are you doing that, I can tell you are mislabeling it on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N13
andnowweknow said:
The "it isn't fair crowd" is gonna be aggrieved again.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koquerelle
Law Giuliani sued by his accountant
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
idrankyourbeer
idrankyourbeer

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,113
Messages
55,538,572
Members
174,820
Latest member
Víctor Hugo Teco

Share this page

Back
Top