2006-10-13T11:53:03Ztag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/thursday-hearingtag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/262/9432006-10-13T11:53:03ZSursumCorda<p>I understand that the prosecution doesn't care if this goes on forever, since this way they accomplish their desire -- Judy can't practice -- without having to convict her of anything. But what I don't understand is how Judy's attorney can be content with this travesty of the ideals of speedy justice and that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty.</p>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/262/9422006-10-13T02:41:07ZJon Daley<p>Again from Vicki: Apparently, the expert witness for the prosecution was the only testimony heard today. His testimony brought up additional<br> questions that could not be answered without additional research and discussion with expert witnesses on the side of the defense. The<br> judge allowed a continuance to give Judy's attorney ample time to provide answers to questions raised.</p> <p>The date for another hearing is January 30, 2007.</p>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/262/9412006-10-11T12:48:14ZJon Daley<p>I doubt it includes the third witness either. I guess you don't know that our testimony doesn't really matter all that much. The &quot;experts&quot; know what really happened.</p>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/262/9402006-10-11T12:35:12ZSursumCorda<p>Witness testimony that doesn't involve two of the three witnesses? Seems pretty strange. Thanks for the reminder -- all the delays make it easy to relax our vigilance.</p>