presenting the jury with a world that consisted entirely of a screw and a screwdriver. Every other item is relevant to the narrative of what really happened. Every drug there, every cabinet that was not opened, every item that was not stolen or disturbed, is relevant to alternate theories. The evidence is the narrative, you don’t need to say it. If the defense wants to show a piece of evidence then by definition it supports their narrative. We think Mulrenin jumped because there was soft grass. We think they wrote down that address to go shoot him. We don’t think she went there to rob him, we think she went there to stare at that marijuana. We don’t think she went there to rob him, we think she went there to contemplate what it is like for a man to have convictions for racketeering and battery. Which one of those do you think Judge Recksiedler would allow? And who has the right to a trial by jury, the prosecution, or the defendant? Recksiedler has a preconception that Mandi went there to rob him is the only true, unbiased fair narrative, before the jury gets to weigh the relevance of facts, true facts, themselves. All the jury saw was Mandi meet Mulrenin, they did cocaine, Mulrenin was shot, there was some cash in his closet, and Mandi used his cards at Walmart. The video was edited and deleted before the defense ever got it, to hide the possibility of understanding what really happened that night. The labels on the cell tower map were limited to what was alleged. Even Neisha Cintron committed perjury to simplify the narrative greatly compared to what actually happened. The narrative of what really happened, literally includes every single other item in Mulrenin's apartment. It is more than anyone can articulate. Every other item is an alibi. Judge Recksiedler’s thought process never would have allowed the defense to present any of it, and was biased towards the prosecution’s narrative, and towards guilt. Recksiedler's process of denying the defendant the opportunity to present his defense worked great for another trial of hers, a guy named Greg Lepera. He got convicted of drunk boating manslaughter. But he is a well-known businessman who is politically connected in Seminole County, and Recksiedler sent him home with a suspended sentence. Of course there is no point for Lepera to appeal her decisions. Recksiedler's process worked not so great for Mandi who only sucked a guy's dick in Seminole County, and got two mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. Scott’s jury was presented with a choice between two simple competing narratives, neither with much correlation to the truth. It was sort of disrespectful and the jurors knew they were being snowed. Of course it is disrespectful toward the defendant and the victim and their families. But I never knew before that lawyers and judges have a total disdain for the sentiments, the morals, the tendencies, the intellectual capacity of the jury. They see the jury as a bunch of benighted superstitious bumpkins. It may be the safest assumption. And then after hiding the truth to manipulate and protect the sentiments of the jury all day, with a contrived set of crumbs of so-called evidence, Stone says "use your common sense." The jury has no idea. By design. When the jailhouse witnesses claimed Mandi confessed, Scott’s lawyers immediately said that is hearsay, can't use it in court against Scott. And the judge agreed. If the truth matters, it is just garbage gossip from the jailhouse where nobody expects anybody to tell the truth, and nobody has any incentive to tell the truth. Mandi and Scott are guaranteed equal protection under the 14th amendment. They were accused of equal collusion in the same crime. There is no difference in the credibility of what the jailhouse witnesses said Mandi did, versus what they said Scott did. The only difference between Mandi and Scott, is Mandi's right against self incrimination in the 5th amendment, particularly when locked in jail and being asked questions. But case law says the same evidence, the jailhouse witnesses, can be used against Mandi, and not against Scott. I guess the idea is that Scott Love would be denied his Constitutional right to confront the witness, because Mandi won't come to the stand and testify. Elected State Attorney Phil Archer and Mandi's f1rst judge, the respected Debra Nelson, both agreed Mandi could be compelled to unlock her cellphone, after being granted immunity from using that as evidence that she owned the cellphone. When Mandi's lawyer asked one of the jailhouse witnesses if she discussed the elements of the crime of burglary with her attorney, the judge said you can't ask that. Attorney client privilege of this small fact, overrides Mandi's right to confront witnesses under the sixth amendment. So certainly Mandi could have been subpoenaed by Scott’s lawyers, and confronted in court about her supposed confessions. At least to the same extent Mandi could be coerced to unlock her cellphone, or a jailhouse witness can be confionted about what her lawyer told her to say. The jailhouse witness can go up there and say anything, Mandi used a black glock, Mandi let Scott Love into the IV-49