APoc184
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 24,668
At this stage the defence is just denying the majority of the stuff the witnesses (all family, neighbours and friends) are saying the boy told them in the days/moments after the murders.
He apparently told his aunt that he picked up a gun and fired a shot to let the intruders know he is armed. (Nothing of this was mentioned by the police or his statement) This was the day after the murders so he probably knew by then that he has been tested for gun shot residue and could possibly have been trying to cover his tracks?
Was it another gun or one of the guns he picked up at the gate as per his explanation? Because he also said the guns he picked up were empty.
I'm guessing he will take the stand and testify later. Because his advocate keep saying the "The boy will testify that he did not......." and "The boy will testify that he said......".
State is probably counting on that and to go all hostile on him like the defence has gone on the state's witnesses.
He apparently told his aunt that he picked up a gun and fired a shot to let the intruders know he is armed. (Nothing of this was mentioned by the police or his statement) This was the day after the murders so he probably knew by then that he has been tested for gun shot residue and could possibly have been trying to cover his tracks?
Was it another gun or one of the guns he picked up at the gate as per his explanation? Because he also said the guns he picked up were empty.
I'm guessing he will take the stand and testify later. Because his advocate keep saying the "The boy will testify that he did not......." and "The boy will testify that he said......".
State is probably counting on that and to go all hostile on him like the defence has gone on the state's witnesses.
Last edited: