Sussmann is a little fish. What is important is that evidence has been entered into a court of law which then can be used to catch the bigger fish. When additional trials occur, the evidence introduced will be used again, which will produce more evidence. The net is getting tighter, and the bigger fish will be trapped.
By simply questioning the vague nature of an oft repeated line about future trials? The OP posted nonsense from a legal perspective about evidence being admitted and useful going forward? Lol what? Evidence is evidence. It’s use in this trial means nothing. It could still be inadmissible in another case. Likewise, evidence deemed inadmissible for this case might be admissible in another. Evidence is evidence. It exists or it doesn’t.
Sussmann is a little fish. What is important is that evidence has been entered into a court of law which then can be used to catch the bigger fish. When additional trials occur, the evidence introduced will be used again, which will produce more evidence. The net is getting tighter, and the bigger fish will be trapped.
And when will these “additional trials” take place? I’ve heard promises of trials for years at this point.
You sound like everybody's working collectively to satisfy you personally and you don't really know what's going on.
By simply questioning the vague nature of an oft repeated line about future trials? The OP posted nonsense from a legal perspective about evidence being admitted and useful going forward? Lol what? Evidence is evidence. It’s use in this trial means nothing. It could still be inadmissible in another case. Likewise, evidence deemed inadmissible for this case might be admissible in another. Evidence is evidence. It exists or it doesn’t.