3 ms·
It's entirely possible that they are both DPR... and there may be others. I mean, that rather fits with the moniker. It's also possible that the intent is to s
by madaxe_again 12y ago
It's entirely possible that they are both DPR... and there may be others. I mean, that rather fits with the moniker.
It's also possible that the intent is to shed doubt on the prosecution by showing how certain they were previously that Karpeles was DPR.
I find it interesting/bizarre that the judge instructed the jury to not watch The Princess Bride.
- debacle 12y agoI wonder if the prosecution screened out people who had already seen the movie.
- m3rc 12y agoWould that also mean the defense would be barred from mentioning it? If they're approach is to prove that DPR was multiple people over time it would probably help them to talk about nature of the name in the context of the movie
- etjossem 12y agoWhy would the judge do that? It's up to the jury to determine - to the best of their ability - whether the "DPR" moniker is really a reference to the multi-headed nature of the group, or whether it's irrelevant. But either way, they should know the context for the name.
- taejo 12y agoIf the jury should know, then either the defense or prosecution should introduce it into evidence.