11. TRIAL OUTTAKES - 2019 One of the more touching moments of Love's trial came when, to prove Love’s guilt, Lofts apartment manager Michelle Ervin remembered how [sex-addict cokehead battering pimp] Mulrenin was a generous man who liked to make anonymous gifts to other residents at Christmastime. The real story is Mulrenin was having early-hours parties all the time where his neighbors could smell marijauna smoke. Next thing two disabled sisters who lived in the building had their Christmas decorations stolen. The most likely story is Mulrenin's drug guests stole the Christmas decorations. And Mulrenin was trying to protect his own self from any trouble, by replacing them anonymously without admitting to anything. There was another incident the jury never heard about, where patrolman Uzzi met Michelle Ervin because an unaccompanied female minor had "escaped" from Mulrenin’s apartment and was wandering the halls. Child Protective Services came and got her. But like with the Christmas decorations, Michelle Ervin handled it in her office, and nobody ever went upstairs to check inside unit 515. Maybe the unaccompanied female minor was the drug guest who stole the disabled sisters’ Christmas decorations. The jury would never know. When Love's lawyer Nielsen asked Barbara Mellinger why Mulrenin left Rachel's in 2001 - he was convicted of racketeering and prostitution - the prosecution objected and Judge Recksiedler wouldn’t allow the question. But they were allowed to tell the jury that Love was convicted of robbery around the same time. Do you think it might be relevant to understand what might have happened, when a 52-year-old man who had a 21- year-old girl at his house, was previously convicted for a prostitution racket? Relevant to using your "common sense" as prosecutor Stone put it? Remember, the prosecution alleged the young girl Mandi tricked the wily old pimp Mulrenin, proved it according to the jury. (They hid that Mandi was stoned out of her mind, not only setting off the fire alarm, but already smoking weed with Neisha at Dollhouse.) Which person's conviction might be more relevant to the jury, given Love was 16 years old when he was convicted of robbery, whereas Mulrenin was a middle-aged adult working as a strip club manager for the same employer, when he was convicted of prostitution, racketeering, and battery? So much for a trial by jury. (The same people who hide that indisputable fact from the jury, argue the jury has an inalienable ancient right to hear any garbage a jailhouse witness can invent to get out of prison, no matter how much physical evidence it contradicts, and without anyone being allowed to utter anything close to the l-word in front of the jury, much less reveal the established scientific truth about the jailhouse witness process in general.) Mulrenin had a Violation of Probation on his racketeering conviction. His probation had been transferred to Michigan, I believe. And Michigan is where Mulrenin got arrested and violated his probation, and got dragged back to jail in Florida, it seems. Using your “common sense,” would a man with that experience call police after a fight in his apartment? Is it advisable to use your common sense, when you assume the Court would tell you these things? There was a funny moment in Mandi's trial that is typical of Stewart Stone, the prosecutor. Mandi's lawyer was saying something about legal philosophy and the Innocence Commission, with regard to jury instructions. He mentioned the famous death penalty case of Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin as an example of an "innocent man" who was convicted and later had his conviction overturned. It's the case where an illegal-alien restaurant worker came in after the murder looking for beer, and got convicted of the murder. 1 don’t know what happened, but it is generally accepted the victims were probably killed by their own family member. The State Attorney could have chosen to retry the case, but in the end they chose not to. Probably because it is the prevailing wisdom the defendant was falsely accused. Not only was the evidence not strong enough to retry Clemente, but the Seminole Sheriff said they were investigating whether they could charge the family member with the murder instead, after they let Clemente go. Stone saw fit to shout in the middle of Mandi's courtroom "Clemente is NOT an innocent man!" Stone is unusually IV-60