Scott Besson
speaker
1,145 appearances
137 recordings
22 series
first heard Dec 2024
last heard 4 Jun
Scott Besson’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 97 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 49.
Appearances
Let me tell you a story about Brian Friedman. They can't. They have to resolve this.
It's colossal. And what you just described will be the words flowing from the prosecutor's lips to establish that this crime was especially cold, calculated and premeditated. CCP, which is one of the aggravators. The other one is hack. heinous, atrocious and cruel.
And that's why I predict that his attorneys will go to the nearest sports goods store and purchase knee pads and get down on their knees and beg for life as opposed to death.
Here's Keith Morrison on... And in their defense... You know, each one of these search could be innocuous. Searching Ted Bundy doesn't make you a serial killer and looking up certain things. But when you put it all together, I mean, you know, again, he enjoys the presumption of innocence like anybody, but there's only one picture that emerges.
Leaving your knife sheath with your DNA. That's problematic. That's all I'm saying.
It's so creepy. It's just so creepy. Again, you can explain it away. Every single fact doesn't mean that he's guilty of anything, but you put it all together. It's not only bad for the defense, but it's so creepy and disturbing.
I'd want to I'd want to put that in. Are you kidding me? I think it goes to the weight and you let the jury decide how much weight, if any, you're going to give it. You don't keep it out.
I can see the defense not wanting it in for sure because it doesn't help them. And I can see a judge saying, why should I exclude it? If I'm doing a 403 balancing, is it more prejudicial than probative? I don't know. I think there's value to it. I think you let the jury decide on this one.
Absolutely. There's definitely going to be an explanation for every single thing, even the bizarre behavior of circling his vehicle around the crime scene. They're going to bring in, as soon as they possibly can, although the judge has made it a little bit difficult, that he suffers from autism, albeit mild. But maybe that's consistent with that type of behavior.
They're going to explain away all the bizarre behavior. But, you know, just like you can explain away slurred speech, you can explain away bloodshot eyes, you can explain somebody having difficulty driving. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you know, it equals DUI. And in this case, it equals a really abhorrent offense.
Of course. And of the defense, obviously, you're not just going to go, all right, you got us. So there's going to be an argument. Likely, it's not going to be to challenge the effectiveness of DNA. They'll say, all right, it's just DNA on there.
But someone somewhere, and again, don't kill the messenger, wanted to frame him like the Mona Lisa and somehow got a hold of his DNA and somehow the sheath and put it there and wanting to frame him. Now, that would be a, I don't know, an okay argument if there wasn't all this overwhelming other evidence supporting his guilt.
It is so bad and so overwhelming that again, I think how quickly can I get to the prosecutors and beg and plead with them to offer life and end this?
I don't know. The first and foremost, you go to the family members and you ask, what do they want? Right. Because they deserve to be heard. And I consider that not the end all be all, but a lot of weight should be given to their wishes. You know, there's some finality to it. He would love to have a big trial. He would love to have his face go everywhere.
But you deny him that you say, all right, fine, we'll consider giving you life. And then you just go away and you don't appeal at all. And that's it. We're done.
I don't know. I'll defend him on that. I don't know. I think it's fair speculation, but I don't know that that's factually accurate.
Yeah, I think they'll argue it maybe the way you say, but I don't think they need to. I don't think they need to get into arguments that are total speculative. You just stick with what you got. Stick to the facts and let go of those things like that where you really don't know what his intention was.
The Trump economic plan is three pieces, trade, tax, and deregulation. Trade has been implemented first, and that process is occurring. We believe that the tax portion is going very well. Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, who I am in constant contact with, believe that mid-summer we will pass, as the President likes to call it, his one big beautiful bill.
And we believe that that will provide substantial relief for American households. And then deregulation, a hidden and pernicious tax on American households is regulation. We believe that the last administration added several thousand dollars a year to American families' cost and that we will be not only cutting those substantially, rolling that back, but cutting those substantially.
We do not want a generalized decoupling from China. But what we do want is a decoupling for strategic necessities, which we were unable to obtain during COVID. And we realized that efficient supply chains were not resilient supply chains. So we are going to create our own, protect our steel industry. They work on critical medicines, on semiconductors.
Showing 1041–1060 of 1,145 · page 53 of 58
← Previous
Next →