if this intent here is there that they went and they tackled the referee, they re saying it might be because of bad calls or racial slurs or statements being made. would that, therefore, say it s okay? no, it s not okay. first of all, there s no corroboration that racial slurs were made. and isn t it just a convenient thing to say that they were, in fact, made? and if they were made, were they made immediately prior to the tackle to show this was in the heat of passion type of thing? i don t think so. from the video, the first person who tackles the referee, it seems very intentional, very direct, then he stands there for a second, so he doesn t enter the realm of play at that point. the second person is the one who uses the helmet, i believe, and the helmet could also be concluded as a dangerous instrument in the context of the assault. but it s clear that there s intent there. also, the issue that a lot of people are talking about is that
or to others, they have to let him go. all we know at this point, the priest was bludgeoned. tefs a violent struggle. . i wonder as to weather they seek the death penalty. they do have it, but with a first-degree murder charge, normally you have previous contact between the two. it was more like a second-degree murder charge because there was a type of heat of passion type of thing. so lots to look into. how can they come to that conclusion when we don t even know why he allegedly did it. we have to wait and see. this is going to be a question of trying to answer the question why did he do it. one quick question. the police seemed very certain they have the guy. we hear that a lot. is there ever a danger of poisoning a jury pool when you do that? you have to be careful.
jon: why put her on the stand, lis? well, they almost have to. they ve got to try to keep one juror to keep the death penalty off the table. that s what her lawyers are trying to do, to try to humanize her a little bit. i think it s a real stretch, jon. i think this is one of the weakest self-defense cases i have ever heard about. when have you last heard about a self-defense case where somebody slits the other person s throat 27 times and, by the way, then shoots them in the forehead? i don t think the jury s going to buy it, but they really had no other choice but to put her on. jon: doug? you never know how this is hurting the jury. they are undemonnizing her, my term, and theoretically the jury has to reach a unanimous verdict, so you just don t know. having said that, when you look at the case object ily, it would seem to me it s more of a heat of passion type of defense instead of self-defense. for example, you come in, your spouse is in bed with somebody else, you stab them
he never went there with the intent to do her harm or to kill her, but to confront her over something. i think you ll likely see this was a break-up situation where he went there perhaps an altercation broke out between the two of them, and then the next thing was that it went too far, and she was killed. trying to bring this case into a manslaughter type of situation, the defense will say there was no premeditation, there was no deliberation, but this was a heat of passion type of killing. jane: so the best you can do is get a lower charge? well, that s certainly what they re going to focus on now. obviously, this was a very bad crime scene. there s consciousness of guilt, taking the computer. the computer does hold a lot of evidence as to any prior threats. that goes to premeditation, so the defense is going to have to carefully look at that evidence. jane: nicole, as shannon referenced there, there may be some crucial evidence on that computer, potentially death threats? absolut