clearly that Mandi used Mulrenin's cards at Walmart, and it was never disputed she did, every party already conceded it was true. The conclusions of "common sense" were inherent in and limited by the evidence that was permitted and denied. Recksiedler did not allow, for example, Scott Love to show restraints on Mandi's bed at home that show she either likes to be tied up, or is at least willing to submit to being tied up. Love's defense had a theory, which very well could be tlue, that Mulrenin used cable ties to tie Mandi up in a sex fetish. But even though this was directly relevant to the defense’s theory and even to corroborate Love's testimony, and very well may have been true based on what I know, Judge Recksiedler did not allow it. That wasn’t all that was denied to the defense. But even if they had shown every item Love's lawyer had the creativity to include in his narrative, it still would have been insufficient to give the jury a full picture of what happened, the scene and the participants, to where they could use their "common sense." The court showed the jury Mandi Jackson was at a pawn shop several days later. Remember, Mandi Jackson was accused of planning a robbery and tying Mulrenin up with cable ties. None of the fairly ordinary events the prosecution used to show her character, indicate that she would tie a man up in cable ties. Using stolen credit cards at Walmart is the most common thing on Earth, it happens 1000 times a day, and in none of those cases did the person using the cards tie someone up in cable ties. So almost any piece of evidence, that would corroborate any theory of why there were some cable ties, would be helpful. But Judge Recksiedler would not allow the jury to see restraints on Mandi's bed, because Judge Recksiedler has a preconception they are not relevant, before the jury gets to decide for themselves why there were cable ties. When Love’s attorney wanted to ask police if they found any restraints in her bedroom, the judge wouldn’t let him. When Love’s attorney wanted to show the jury the weed in Mulrenin's kitchen, the judge wouldn't let him. The court thought the secret cash locked away in a box in an outside closet was relevant to the jury understanding why Mandi went there that night. The court thought the fact that Mulrenin has a battery conviction and Mandi is a freaky submissive slut with CTE and a compulsive need to self-medicate, and Mulrenin had marijuana that he doesn't use himself, marijuana and a pipe in plain use in plain sight in his kitchen when Mandi was there, were not helpful to the jury understanding why she was there. The jury saw photos of the inside of Mulrenin's hollowed out ribs from organ donation for no reason. It was supposed to show he had a broken neck, when I am sure there was an xray that would make more sense to the jury. The jury saw every random thing in Scott’s bedroom, except the restraints on the corners of the bed that showed Mandi would give in to Scott Love when he caught up with her. The prosecution fought all day to hide the marijuana, and hide the fact that Mandi was on psychotropic drugs for depression and anxiety. Recksiedler allowed the psychotropic drugs in the jury instruction, only after Bark promised he would never mention it out loud in his arguments. They were not allowed to present Mandi as who she was, a depressed person who needs drugs to be happy. Then they told the jury "Use your common sense. A stripper would never go home with an old guy for any reason you know about. The only reason she would go home with this guy is to rob him." Judge Recksiedler agreed with this theory, in judging that the jury should not be allowed to see any evidence of other activities or fetishes. Mandi Jackson is freaky as fuck, and likes for old men to put a gun to her head. I told people that long before this case ever happened. I have a theory it is a childhood rape reenactment fetish. And James Mulrenin was an extreme creepy weirdo sex addict control freak, regardless of how that is whitewashed after his death. Evidence was allowed and denied based on a preconception that cute young girls are prudes who lead guys on and trick them out of their money, and James Mulrenin was a normal old guy. Does your common sense tell you who Mulrenin was, what he was like? Yes, you assume he is a decent guy. And common sense was a misleading substitute for allowing actual evidence of what he was like. Reality is always much more complicated than a simple allegation. I can show you a picture of a screw and a screwdriver, and then say I spent the entire day screwing in screws. Reality is that I spent the day petting my dogs, taking a shower, going to the refrigerator 19 different times, throwing away some trash, falling asleep, getting nine phone calls, scratching a sticker off my laptop, and at least 200 other things. It is literally impossible for me to present to you a narrative of what I actually did with my day. The evidence in Love and J ackson’s trial was like IV-48