Elena

If I had to guess, since they've now heard two experts say that it occurred between 6 and 7, not 2 and 3, I would imagine they're leaning in that direction, but who knows if that will change when the defense calls their cell phone experts. The thing I want to point out is that this is kind of devolved into a trial within a trial.

If I had to guess, since they've now heard two experts say that it occurred between 6 and 7, not 2 and 3, I would imagine they're leaning in that direction, but who knows if that will change when the defense calls their cell phone experts. The thing I want to point out is that this is kind of devolved into a trial within a trial.

And what I mean by that is that whenever House Long is brought up, suddenly the defense becomes the ones that are prosecuting Jen, and the prosecution become the ones defending her. And sticking with that analogy, if the jury finds Jen quote-unquote guilty of making the search at 2.27, it is probably game over for the prosecution.

And what I mean by that is that whenever House Long is brought up, suddenly the defense becomes the ones that are prosecuting Jen, and the prosecution become the ones defending her. And sticking with that analogy, if the jury finds Jen quote-unquote guilty of making the search at 2.27, it is probably game over for the prosecution.

And what I mean by that is that whenever House Long is brought up, suddenly the defense becomes the ones that are prosecuting Jen, and the prosecution become the ones defending her. And sticking with that analogy, if the jury finds Jen quote-unquote guilty of making the search at 2.27, it is probably game over for the prosecution.

But if they find her innocent and may agree that the search was at 6.23, they're still at square one when it comes to Karen's guilt. Do you see what I mean? Like this mini trial we're having for Jen, yes, it's important, but it doesn't actually answer any fundamental questions about Karen's guilt.

But if they find her innocent and may agree that the search was at 6.23, they're still at square one when it comes to Karen's guilt. Do you see what I mean? Like this mini trial we're having for Jen, yes, it's important, but it doesn't actually answer any fundamental questions about Karen's guilt.

But if they find her innocent and may agree that the search was at 6.23, they're still at square one when it comes to Karen's guilt. Do you see what I mean? Like this mini trial we're having for Jen, yes, it's important, but it doesn't actually answer any fundamental questions about Karen's guilt.

And on that note, we ended the day with the prosecution playing another clip from Karen's interviews, where she says, quote, Jen McCabe, it's me or her. Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are. Now that brings us to Thursday, which was dedicated to testimony from Yuri Buchanek, a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the supervisor of none other than Michael Proctor at the time of the incident.

And on that note, we ended the day with the prosecution playing another clip from Karen's interviews, where she says, quote, Jen McCabe, it's me or her. Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are. Now that brings us to Thursday, which was dedicated to testimony from Yuri Buchanek, a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the supervisor of none other than Michael Proctor at the time of the incident.

And on that note, we ended the day with the prosecution playing another clip from Karen's interviews, where she says, quote, Jen McCabe, it's me or her. Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are. Now that brings us to Thursday, which was dedicated to testimony from Yuri Buchanek, a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the supervisor of none other than Michael Proctor at the time of the incident.

Now right off the bat, we heard something interesting. Buchanek stated that his understanding was that Karen had made statements quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defense's stance that Karen was making interrogative statements, in other words those are questions, about hitting John, not declarative statements.

Now right off the bat, we heard something interesting. Buchanek stated that his understanding was that Karen had made statements quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defense's stance that Karen was making interrogative statements, in other words those are questions, about hitting John, not declarative statements.

Now right off the bat, we heard something interesting. Buchanek stated that his understanding was that Karen had made statements quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defense's stance that Karen was making interrogative statements, in other words those are questions, about hitting John, not declarative statements.

Now Buchanek also testified to observing the injuries on John's body at the hospital, which included some blood pooling under his head, blood and swelling in both eyes, small cuts to his face, and abrasions or cuts to his right arm. He said that he found a pile of John's clothes, including a sweatshirt, shirt, and pants, which he showed to the jury.

Now Buchanek also testified to observing the injuries on John's body at the hospital, which included some blood pooling under his head, blood and swelling in both eyes, small cuts to his face, and abrasions or cuts to his right arm. He said that he found a pile of John's clothes, including a sweatshirt, shirt, and pants, which he showed to the jury.

Now Buchanek also testified to observing the injuries on John's body at the hospital, which included some blood pooling under his head, blood and swelling in both eyes, small cuts to his face, and abrasions or cuts to his right arm. He said that he found a pile of John's clothes, including a sweatshirt, shirt, and pants, which he showed to the jury.

He also testified to finding one of John's shoes at the hospital, But there was a little bit of a slip-up when he was showing it to the jury. The prosecution brought him an evidence bag and asked Bukinik if this is the shoe he recovered from the hospital. And he's like, nope, that's not it. That's the shoe that was found at 34 Fairview, John's other shoe.

He also testified to finding one of John's shoes at the hospital, But there was a little bit of a slip-up when he was showing it to the jury. The prosecution brought him an evidence bag and asked Bukinik if this is the shoe he recovered from the hospital. And he's like, nope, that's not it. That's the shoe that was found at 34 Fairview, John's other shoe.

He also testified to finding one of John's shoes at the hospital, But there was a little bit of a slip-up when he was showing it to the jury. The prosecution brought him an evidence bag and asked Bukinik if this is the shoe he recovered from the hospital. And he's like, nope, that's not it. That's the shoe that was found at 34 Fairview, John's other shoe.