Peter Frick-Wright
In an attempt to answer some questions I received over the weekend, here’s what the logistics look like for the rest of the trial.
Just before lunch on Thursday, after Detective Vincent’s testimony, the prosecution rested. They won’t be calling more witnesses or presenting any more evidence.
Court was not in session on Friday or Monday because of scheduling conflicts, though it wasn’t clear what took priority.
The defense will begin presenting its case on Tuesday, and while Vandeman was originally supposed to testify last, a conversation between the judge and both attorneys may have changed that.
After the jury left the room on Thursday, Cabanero submitted a motion that the testimony of a witness who will say that he came upon Vandeman after an incident in 2007 doesn’t have any bearing on the charges. Based on the conversation, the witness is going to testify that he met Vandeman just after a group of mountain bikers attacked him on the trail.
Cabanero argued that this was an unrelated incident since none of the current victims were part of that attack, and said testimony would be unduly prejudicial since the only thing the attackers and the victims have in common is mountain biking. The judge was inclined to agree, though, as I understood the exchange, if Vandeman’s testimony related that incident, the defense would be able to call a witness to corroborate the story.
Which is all to say that tomorrow, we’ll hear testimony from the two hikers who were accompanying Vandeman when Lanham was cut with the saw and, with the order of witnesses flipped around, possibly Vandeman himself. It’s a coin-flip at this point.
The defense may or may not decide to call its final witness, then both lawyers will present closing arguments. The jury could go into deliberations Wednesday, with verdicts possible anytime after that.
I will be truly delighted if they conclude on Thursday, because right now, I’m planning on spending my Friday out riding Tamarancho.
Thank you for the update, but we really didn’t need to learn that you will be enjoying the trails and beauty of Tamarancho while we’re chained to our desks in cubicles. You mountainbikers really ARE savages.
For the umpteenth time, MTBers, Great Gazoo is not Mike V. Like usual, mountain bikers never listen and don’t care about anything except their ride in the dirt, playing in the mud like the little boys/tomboys they are.
Hello, “mtbr forum” people — yoo! hoo? — are you “all there”? I keep hearing a vacuous echo on that forum of yours…Let’s try again: “Great Gazoo is not Mike V.” Repeat after me: “Great Gazoo is not Mike V”….Very good. Have you learned your lesson, now? Thank you.
Some things I am wondering about re: the prosecution.
Did they ask if the defendant was trying to undo the quick release on the wheel?
Did they ask if the defendant understood what would happen if the quick release was undone and the bicycle was ridden?
Did they at any time discuss or ask if the defendant was purposefully trying to incite/goad mtbers to hit him?
@ Great Gazoo – Having read many of Mike Vandeman’s postings, I agree. He has a fairly specific writing style. You are much more civil, but you parrot his stereotypes, which is the source of the confusion. Also, your Twitter page is much more creative than Mr. Vandeman’s “Web 1.0″ style pages. You did, however, just refer to yourself in the third person. Are we a little high and mighty?
No more “high and mighty” than the mountain bikers like to paint themselves…
@ Great Gazoo – To avoid stereotyping and accusations of being M.V., you should write: “No more ‘high and mighty’ than SOME OF the mountain bikers like to paint themselves…”