We objected to the questioning your honor?

The_Donuticus:

We objected to the questioning your honor?

Noted, you are correct.

RULING ON THE OBJECTIONS

Matthew100x Questions to xBlu3:

2. You mentioned that at some point, you transferred your balance to SimplyMadi. Do you have an estimate of how many times you were robbed before making that transfer? - Speculation: Questions that call for the witness to speculate about something.

Overruled, the witness is allowed to give an estimation pertaining to their knowledge of events.

3. Have you ever had to transfer your balance before or after the attacks due to excessive robberies? - Relevance:  The testimony pursuant to a question asked or the particular item of evidence is not relevant to the case. (It is not relevant to ask if the witness has EVER had to transfer they balance, but if they had to transfer their balance in the events around this case)

Overruled, the witness is allowed to answer.

3. Have you ever had to transfer your balance before or after the attacks due to excessive robberies? - Repetitive: The question has already been asked and answered. (As highlighted in a previous question, the witness has already highlighted this in evidence)

Sustained, unnecessary.

Matthew100x Questions to RandomIntruder:

Could RandomIntruder please state why they believe to be an expert on this issue?

As for the other objections, if the witness is indeed an expert witness, they are allowed to testify about their conclusions, as long as their analysis is scientifically sound.

The defence may challenge the validity and applicability of the analysis during cross.

Matthew100x Questions to SimplyMadi:

2. How often do you or your friends transfer balances when there is a serial robber making their rounds? - Just all the objections your honor, the Prosecution is asking SimplyMadi to testify on behalf of her friends, has made an leading  assertion using the term "serial robber" and is asking the witness to speculate.

Sustained, the question's relevance to this case is not clear and it's partly hearsay. The answer is stricken from the record.

xBlu3 please answer the questions within the next 48 hours (by 20-6-2024 1 am GMT+2) or you will be held in contempt:
1. The evidence says that you were killed by Krix 6 times, is this true?

2. You mentioned that at some point, you transferred your balance to SimplyMadi. Do you have an estimate of how many times you were robbed before making that transfer?

3. Have you ever had to transfer your balance before or after the attacks due to excessive robberies

The same goes for RandomIntruder please answer within 48 hours:
Please state your expertise on the issue of probabilities.

I am the leading math scholar in the Isles University (I am one class away from a Bachelors in Applied Mathematics in real life). 

MilkCrack:

xBlu3 please answer the questions within the next 48 hours (by 20-6-2024 1 am GMT+2) or you will be held in contempt:
1. The evidence says that you were killed by Krix 6 times, is this true?

2. You mentioned that at some point, you transferred your balance to SimplyMadi. Do you have an estimate of how many times you were robbed before making that transfer?

3. Have you ever had to transfer your balance before or after the attacks due to excessive robberies

The same goes for RandomIntruder please answer within 48 hours:
Please state your expertise on the issue of probabilities.

 

I was killed by Krix at least 6+ times. And in terms of how many deaths I sustained before transferring my funds, I'd estimate at least 10. It had gotten to the point where the /911 command failed to report them. I had never had to go to such lengths as transferring my funds prior to the incident, and have not since the incident occurred.

Objection

The witness claims they were killed by my client more than 10 times, however the evidence from the chatlogs shows it only happened 6 times, this is an established fact it CANNOT have happened more than 10 times - it is clear that either their memory of events is completely wrong or they are being intentionally mistruthful with the goal of harming my client. I personally believe that xBlu2 has committed perjury in their answer.

Motion to Strike

I motion to strike all of xBlu2 testimony for the reasons given above.

Motion to Strike

I motion to strike all of RandomIntruders testimony as by their own admission they are still in training and therefore not a qualified expert.

Can I respond to the objection with my own objection against xblue3's answers for the purpose of a new answer rather then striking all testimony?

Objection

xBlu2 has already proven that they are an unreliable witness, if you lie in court you don't get handed out a second chance card. 

Counsel there was no lie, it was a misunderstanding of the question.