Kaylee Simmons, pointing out how what she said disagreed with all the physical evidence. I would have liked for the jury to see multiple pictures from inside the apartment to prove it was not ransacked and things were not taken. But that is the small details, and Mandi's lawyers looked at the big picture. Kaylee is an armed robber and uniquely unfortunate lowlife and bottom-feeder, who would say anything or do anything to anyone, to get less time in prison. They did a great job destroying Julie Madara, to where I think Bark was more defending his fellow lawyer Carrie Rentz. Jailhouse scumbag witness Madara really had it in for Mandi's lawyer Carrie. Madara was saying some really low things about Carrie on the jail phone that I don’t need to repeat. And I think Bark was zealous about going after her as much for Carrie as for Mandi. I am not saying Bark slacked for Mandi. But his best and most zealous part of the trial involved Carrie. And I do think the jailhouse witnesses were effective as a distraction, to where Mandi's lawyers did not give the rest of the evidence the importance or energy they should have. So even if the jailhouse witnesses were discredited, they convicted Mandi by taking her lawyers' time away from the rest of the case they needed to worry about building. And they probably had the same effect of confusing and misguiding the jury to fixate on the wrong things. It is just a total disgrace to justice, that the taxpayer pays for the lowest scumbags they can find to take over a murder trial with irrelevant nonsense. Then Mandi's lawyers presented their narrative of what happened that wasn't a robbery. Problem is they can't tell the jurors what actually happened in Mulrenin's apartment. Because it is not "in evidence." Remember, only witnesses can introduce new information or new lies. But nobody explained that to the jury, so they expect to hear exactly what happened. Mandi's laywers can try to sort of tell what really happened, by arguing how the evidence shows what happened. But the prosecution will object, and then it will be messy. And there are some reasons they don’t want to try. First, they have some kind of unwritten rule that you don't say bad things about the victim. So if the truth is Mulrenin was a monster in there, they don't want to say it and have the prosecution say "objection, not in evidence." Second, there is really no evidence of what Mandi is there for. There is no evidence she is a hooker who fucks old guys for money. There was no evidence allowed she likes to smoke weed. So they can't really say much without the judge going crazy, except Mandi just thought Mulrenin was a great guy. Finally as local lawyers who know what the judge will say, they may foresee how the limited parts of the story they might be able to get across, could create more problems than it solves. For example, with the duct tape, which I will get to more later. So Mandi's lawyers told a brief narrative that was a little hard to believe. Mandi was just a regular girl who went home with with a regular guy, and cheated on her boyfriend. They said Scott came in and tried to tie them both up, or I don’t even know. They even said Scott’s DNA was on the cable ties, which it wasn’t. And then Mulrenin went over the balcony? I don’t even remember, because it wasn’t clear. Her boyfriend tracked her down and broke it up violently, and Mandi submitted to her boyfriend and went back to him. But the jurors maybe found it hard to believe Scott would come in and catch his girlfriend cheating and shoot the guy and try to tie him up, and then Mandi would go home with him and use credit cards like nothing happened. The jury may be smart not to believe that, because it never happened, as I will get to when I tell you what I believe happened. But just because it never happened exactly like that, does not prove the prosecution’s alternative explanation, that Mandi was a principal in a robbery. Something like what Mandi's lawyers described did happen, and not like what the prosecutor described. And the jurors were supposed to be able to figure out the basic idea of Mandi's narrative was right, it was something other than a robbery. But what they were supposed to figure it out based on, that Kaylee said Mandi was trafficked meaning she was a teenage hooker who had a pimp, maybe didn’t play into the jurors thinking as much as it was supposed to, to explain who Mandi was. As Mandi's lawyer Bark said to me, the jurors might not even know what "trafficked" means. So they never quite got that Mandi is a submissive sex toy who gets passed around by violent guys who are the boss of her. It would have helped to know Mulrenin was a convicted pimp, since jurors probably think a strip-club manager is like a roller-rink manager. Then they might have understood these are not like normal boyfriends, where Mandi IV-75