Read Trial 2: Bederow And I Break Down The Defense Case - Some Major Differences With Each Other And The Read Team

Wouldn't it make sense to have someone opposite of FKR to break down the Defense case so you're not always living in an echo chamber or is that bad for ratings?

AJ just said “ clunky” again!! Shoutout to Peter!

What does it take to be the best? 🔥 Witness the struggle, the triumphs, and the raw emotion on Surviving Mann. Follow for more! #SurvivingMann #BestOfTheBest #NavySEALs #SpecOps #TacticalTraining

I'll have to be on the replay crew. Opening statements for Lori Vallow are in process.

Thank you both for another great podcast. Some thoughts: 1) Proctor texts I think Judge Canone allowed the friend to read the texts in part to shield Proctor. I think she's happy about Proctor not having to take the stand. (Feel free to infer what you like from that.) I think the defense is okay with this because I think Jackson plans to read these in their closing argument. That coupled with the missing witness instruction might really be impactful. Remember the jury last trial heard Michael Proctor on the stand reading the awful text messages himself, and eight of them still voted guilty on lesser charges of Count 2. 2) order of witnesses I understand wanting to call witnesses in an order that flows in certain themes, but I like the order because if you call all of the scientific witnesses first then all civilian witnesses, then by the end, the science is too far away and you run the risk of it losing its impact. So I like peppering in the witnesses and changing themes to keep the jury's interest and keep all of the topics fresh in their minds. 3) witnesses not called With respect to the other "missing" witnesses, I think one of the things the defense is trying not to do is go too deep into the weeds with the conspiracy because I think it loses some of the jurors and shifts the burden, which is exactly what Brennan wants. The defense is benefiting on some level from not calling all the Alberts/etc because there's a risk of the jury believing them that John never came into the house. I think the defense got their theory out there effectively regarding Higgins through other witnesses (bar video, texts, police station video). I also think choosing to focus more on the "there was no collision" argument makes it easier for the jurors to come to a not guilty verdict on ALL of the charges. And to be fair, it's not about thinking the defense can do no wrong at all, but I get what they're doing. I think they have done a better job outlining their theory of a third-party culprit combined with the lack of investigation while establishing a mountain of reasonable doubt along the way.

@BostonDefender and @alessinator please watch this and listen to Mark! Or call him! You don’t want to miss things like the first time with Barros!

Bederow guess u really want to be part of this rico case 🤡

Love your recaps. Re: Barros - I wish the defense showed him the image of the taillight when all the broken pieces were put together and there was a missing part. Then ask him … is that how the taillight looked when you saw it?

Love you down. And I know ppl ride for Bederow. But that man does go on (and on and on and on) jeeze Louise can you PLEASE bring on EDB??