anonymous
Guest
anonymous
Guest
Once again this board fiddles while Rome burns. The Boston case just went to the jury on Friday. Deliberations begin tomorrow. It has been a fascinating 10 weeks thus far. How long the jury will need to reach a verdict is anyone's guess.
A few observations. Wilkerson hasn't advanced either her own, nor her client's credibility. Granted, it's a tough case to defend, but its' s what she does and frankly her arguments were both improbable and illogical. When the prosecutor hastens to agree with your point, (Burlakoff is a liar and unstable) and asks in open court "Look at him!" "Would YOU hire HIM for your VP of sales?" It's a pretty safe bet you are not scoring points with the jury.
Kapoor as the grieving widower narrative, flies in the face of multiple romantic entanglements he has enjoyed with his youthful, nubile sales reps. Many adjectives come to mind that describe Kapoor to a "T". Grief-stricken, sadly is not among them.
I had a good laugh at the Sgt. Schultz defense: "I see, hear, know nothing." Yes, quite right ! You never saw that video or those pesky spreadsheets. I understand there is no IQ test for jurors. Still, it seems a bit risky to assume their intelligence cannot be offended.
Then there is my favorite. When all else fails, claim victim status. Kapoor is the target of a government conspiracy to "take down" a top CEO. It's not clear, to me, from the reporting, why the government would spend years and thousands of tax payors dollars attempting such a thing. But if you acknowledge that it is inherently difficult to disprove something that didn't happen, I guess it's as good a strategy as any.
So the decision is now up to 12 people. I hold no illusions. Nothing is certain, least of all justice. It's a system as flawed as the people who rely on it. But, for now, to bring this hideous story to it's end, it's the best we can do.
A few observations. Wilkerson hasn't advanced either her own, nor her client's credibility. Granted, it's a tough case to defend, but its' s what she does and frankly her arguments were both improbable and illogical. When the prosecutor hastens to agree with your point, (Burlakoff is a liar and unstable) and asks in open court "Look at him!" "Would YOU hire HIM for your VP of sales?" It's a pretty safe bet you are not scoring points with the jury.
Kapoor as the grieving widower narrative, flies in the face of multiple romantic entanglements he has enjoyed with his youthful, nubile sales reps. Many adjectives come to mind that describe Kapoor to a "T". Grief-stricken, sadly is not among them.
I had a good laugh at the Sgt. Schultz defense: "I see, hear, know nothing." Yes, quite right ! You never saw that video or those pesky spreadsheets. I understand there is no IQ test for jurors. Still, it seems a bit risky to assume their intelligence cannot be offended.
Then there is my favorite. When all else fails, claim victim status. Kapoor is the target of a government conspiracy to "take down" a top CEO. It's not clear, to me, from the reporting, why the government would spend years and thousands of tax payors dollars attempting such a thing. But if you acknowledge that it is inherently difficult to disprove something that didn't happen, I guess it's as good a strategy as any.
So the decision is now up to 12 people. I hold no illusions. Nothing is certain, least of all justice. It's a system as flawed as the people who rely on it. But, for now, to bring this hideous story to it's end, it's the best we can do.