first of all, this guy mike renaud makes himself sound like he s a good buddy of michael george. he talks to him all the time. michael george doesn t remember him at all. as the defense told it, renaud s multiple calls to the police changing his times indicated that this witness didn t have a good handle on his recollections and was, therefore, unreliable. he calls back several times being uncertain of the time when he was making the call. if the call to michael george happened at all and the defense disputes that it did, defense attorney marlinga believed it must have been placed before the shop owner left for his mother s house. that was more than an hour before the murder. so you re saying renaud is not just mistaken with his times, that he is he s a little bit motivated. he s a person of mischief. we think he wanted to to become a hero. in fact, since the last trial renaud had tried to bolster his story by adding new facts according to the defense. renaud reve
before the murder or the defendant s mother, his al by witness that he was napping on her couch across town at the same time. to me, ultimately, it came down to michael renaud s testimony and the phone call that he made that placed michael george at the scene of the crime. so did the defense damage mike renaud s credibility by attacking him as a marijuana smoking, beer-guzzling college kid? not to this juror. i think they were trying to personally attack him to get us to believe that he couldn t remember anything because he was a drug abuser. and several jurors questioned the mother s recollection of events. i m not saying she would lie for him, but, i mean, would you stick up for your kids? the jurors talked it through for three days and finally took a vote. all right, gentlemen. we have a verdict. their job was done. all rise for a jury. michael george cried quietly. his wife renee, remained stoic. on the benches across the court, barb s brother hoped for justice