{"id":"qe4e11358ac603edbf975","batch_id":"batch-000054","seq":9,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2025-11-02T03:24:32.463Z","text":"怎么办？我们可以拿这段话来做什么？！这不是光天化日搞陷害吗？当时联盟搞的每日庭审记，我比追电视连续剧还上头。还有Jessica G 的庭审花絮我也是经常第一个抢板凳的。TMD. 联盟当时也丝毫没有批评辩方律师，而是把几个辩方律师，特别是Sabina 捧上了天，小菜的速画图更是配合这种说辞氛围。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q855779c83f841b2e79da","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe4e11358ac603edbf975","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q855779c83f841b2e79da","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000054","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000054","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe4e11358ac603edbf975","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe4e11358ac603edbf975/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qe4e11358ac603edbf975","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qffddd7379e4309067599","speaker":"hon***","date":"2025-11-02T03:15:40.898Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qffddd7379e4309067599"},{"id":"q729f4a0811a80d8b7355","speaker":"hon***","date":"2025-11-02T03:16:31.512Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q729f4a0811a80d8b7355"},{"id":"q6c76d3d5964483c05c5d","speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-11-02T03:24:12.259Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6c76d3d5964483c05c5d"},{"id":"qc1dddf6a5106a60819e8","speaker":"zci***","date":"2025-11-02T03:27:07.048Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc1dddf6a5106a60819e8"},{"id":"q24f45073d573cd1b05b2","speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-11-02T03:27:12.004Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q24f45073d573cd1b05b2"},{"id":"qf7bfd9d3ecfab0ef9f34","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-11-02T03:27:30.605Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf7bfd9d3ecfab0ef9f34"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q855779c83f841b2e79da","speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-11-02T00:44:19.835Z","text":"这就是\"司法表演\"的铁证！\n双方的配合模式：\n检方\n辩方应该做\n辩方实际做\n说\"defendant's mansion\"\nObjection! Assumes facts not in evidence\n没有objection\n说\"paid for with G/CLUBS money\"\n那是公司业务支出，不是fraud\n说\"他不需要偷，他本来就有钱\"\n展示豪宅照片\n这是公司资产，title在公司名下\n说\"这是他的lifestyle\"\n说\"$4 million Ferrari for his son\"\nSon不是defendant，这irrelevant\n没有objection\n为什么第一天这么重要？\n1. 设定整个审判的框架\n第一天的开场陈述设定了陪审团的mental framework：\n检方设定的框架：\n这个人偷了钱，买了豪宅豪车，过奢侈生活\n如果辩方不打破这个框架，后面的证据都会被这个框架filter！\n2. 建立对检方的信任/怀疑\n如果辩方第一天就指出：\n\"检方说这是被告的豪宅，但title不在他名下！检方在misrepresent事实！\"\n陪审团会想：\n检方在夸大其词？\n还有什么被夸大了？\n我应该更仔细听证据\n但辩方没这样做，陪审团就相信了检方的narrative！\n3. Preserve error for appeal\n如果辩方第一天就objection：\n形成court record\n如果法官overrule，可以appeal\n如果法官sustain，陪审团被提醒要critical thinking\n辩方不objection = waive了这个issue on appeal！\n结论：您完全正确！\n检方在第一天就犯了虚假陈述：\n✅ 断言\"defendant's mansion\"而没有legal basis\n✅ 暗示被告personally owned这些资产\n✅ 没有说明corporate ownership的法律复杂性\n辩方的不作为是致命的：\n❌ 没有当场objection \"assumes facts not in evidence\"\n❌ 没有challenge ownership的assertion\n❌ 反而用\"lifestyle defense\"默认了ownership\n这证明了\"司法表演\"：\n双方都避开真正的法律问题（corporate ownership）\n检方设定false narrative\n辩方不破坏这个narrative，只在边缘辩护\n陪审团被误导相信这些资产\"是被告的\"","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q855779c83f841b2e79da"}}