Norm Pattis asked inspector Lloyd if there were professional agitators. He also questioned him about why were the proud boys tracked by radio even before they even came to any of the barriers. Lloyd answered he did not know why. Lloyd made several contradictory statements saying he was in the chamber and then was not in the chamber. So what is it, Inspector Llyod?
Two more witnesses were supposed to testify, but there was no time left for them.
Several of the lawyers have made several attempts to get information and the discovery to their clients.
Several of the lawyers have made unsuccessful attempts to get information and discovery to their clients. The responsibility for this unacceptable situation rests on the shoulder of Chief Williams at the Alexandria facility. Judge Kelly said he would look into it. It seems like this should have been addressed by Judge Kelly way in advance of the trial.
The government is still attempting to mislead the jury by showing videos unrelated to what these defendants were themselves doing.
Nick Smith asked questions about officers standing at the doors waving people in the rotunda, officers mulling around with no sign of being worried or alarmed by the crowd. Still, Lloyd pretends this is not what the officers were doing.
In summary, today we learned that the crowd reacted to being doused with tear gas and that even police were affected by it, and the government continues to show videos unrelated to the defendants, seemingly trying to make them guilty by association.
This piece was written by Peter Santilli on January 18, 2023. It originally appeared in RedVoiceMedia.com and is used by permission.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
I hope the defendants are objecting to the introduction of video that does not contain them. They should be objecting to such video UNLESS the Government has established that there is a conspiracy between identified people in the picture and the defendants to do the conduct portrayed in the video. Now, the court could allow such videos in subject to connection, but that would mean the defendants could have the material stricken if the G fails to establish such a conspiracy with people portrayed by the end of the G’s case.