Yes, I was at the beach at the time in question, But was i swimming in the water? No. I was merely dipping my toes along the edge. You will find that my clothes were in no way soaked. If i were to have swam from the boat in question, I would be drenched would i not?
Why the officers at the scene chose not to give me a sobriety test is a mystery to me, All i can say is that i went in the ocean in a full suit and tie for *Plum* sake. I would have to be drunk to do that! I plead not guilty your honor!
Kaitlin: To the gov: You really contradict yourself... Were you in the ocean or not?
The Gov: I... I, Um... I was... I Dont remember. My memory is hazy, I'm sorry i cant be of more help.
Kaitlin: For your information, Ms Wakefield didn't have to bribe me, because she doesn't have anything to hide like someone else in this courtroom...
The Gov: You are quite mistaken Ms. Harlow, Ms. Wakefield wont even tell you what she really does for a living. *Cracks knuckles*
Wil: Just saying... She doesn't have to. Like I said, she could be a farmer or a ballerina and she could still be someone who enjoys triathlons... She could even be a corrupted politician who attempted murder!
The Gov: Witholding vital information in a court of law? According to your defense Mr. Sampson, Witholding information on my drunken state from the court was evidence in your eyes to find me guilty...
So by your same logic, Your client witholding information on her true occupation also makes her guilty. You just admitted your own client is guilty of the crimes in question Mr. Sampson. *Laughs*
If the jury see sense they will find the person who's story does'nt match with the eyewitnesse's statement, Who lied about the clothing she was wearing, Lied about her occupation, Lied about her actions on said day, Who had perfect opportunity to commit the crimes in question and who's only defense is that the court is corrupt and the witnesses are unreliable to which they have already proved that they were telling the truth by providing the same statement without any discrepancies, Ms. Wakefield is guilty as charged.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a vacation to Cuba that needs planning.
Kaitlin: Want to flee the country? You are so guilty...
The Gov: Certainly not, I need a vacation to recover from my last, Where i was wrongfully accused of human trafficking! That's not my sort of buisness, I prefer less messy operations. *Mumbles something under his breath about tax evasion*
Yes, I was at the beach at the time in question, But was i swimming in the water? No. I was merely dipping my toes along the edge. You will find that my clothes were in no way soaked. If i were to have swam from the boat in question, I would be drenched would i not?
Why the officers at the scene chose not to give me a sobriety test is a mystery to me, All i can say is that i went in the ocean in a full suit and tie for *Plum* sake. I would have to be drunk to do that! I plead not guilty your honor!
Kaitlin: To the gov: You really contradict yourself... Were you in the ocean or not?
The Gov: I... I, Um... I was... I Dont remember. My memory is hazy, I'm sorry i cant be of more help.
Yes, I was at the beach at the time in question, But was i swimming in the water? No. I was merely dipping my toes along the edge. You will find that my clothes were in no way soaked. If i were to have swam from the boat in question, I would be drenched would i not?
Why the officers at the scene chose not to give me a sobriety test is a mystery to me, All i can say is that i went in the ocean in a full suit and tie for *Plum* sake. I would have to be drunk to do that! I plead not guilty your honor!
Kaitlin: To the gov: You really contradict yourself... Were you in the ocean or not?
Zelinda: Objection! The witness ended up stating that he was lying about the first part but the reason about why he lied in the first place has deal with a completely different reason other than whatever he is innocent or guilty.
Zelinda: Wil, you have been quite confident that Tamela's job but you never explained the reasons why. It is almost as if you want to us to hide Tamela's true job like if it was going to evidence into determining into proving Tamela's guilt.
If Tamela's job has nothing to deal with this case, what is so wrong about hearing about the job in the first place?
Kaitlin: For your information, Ms Wakefield didn't have to bribe me, because she doesn't have anything to hide like someone else in this courtroom...
The Gov: You are quite mistaken Ms. Harlow, Ms. Wakefield wont even tell you what she really does for a living. *Cracks knuckles*
Wil: Just saying... She doesn't have to. Like I said, she could be a farmer or a ballerina and she could still be someone who enjoys triathlons... She could even be a corrupted politician who attempted murder!
The Gov: Witholding vital information in a court of law? According to your defense Mr. Sampson, Witholding information on my drunken state from the court was evidence in your eyes to find me guilty...
So by your same logic, Your client witholding information on her true occupation also makes her guilty. You just admitted your own client is guilty of the crimes in question Mr. Sampson. *Laughs*
If the jury see sense they will find the person who's story does'nt match with the eyewitnesse's statement, Who lied about the clothing she was wearing, Lied about her occupation, Lied about her actions on said day, Who had perfect opportunity to commit the crimes in question and who's only defense is that the court is corrupt and the witnesses are unreliable to which they have already proved that they were telling the truth by providing the same statement without any discrepancies, Ms. Wakefield is guilty as charged.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a vacation to Cuba that needs planning.
Wil: Prove to me it's vital? Prove to me that her occupation has anything to do with this case... Like honestly... Would you like her age too? How about her PIN number? Or what about Pacco's parent's names? Maybe that'll give you the information you so desperately think will life you from the hole you dug yourself.
We're not withholding information, its just useless facts and she's blanking out so she hasn't said anything yet (she's not here to say anything XD) She's not lying about her alibi and I didn't say she was lying about anything because she isn't. We've been straightforward in what we know and what we've said. You and Zelinda, however, have been flipflopping about the fact that you were/weren't drunk at the time, and your own lawyer admitted you were lying. THAT'S where you're guilty.
I have evidence to suggest that at least one member of the jury is corrupt... Pacco... Which you considered bribing. Did you not?... What's the matter? I proded at the hole in your story and all of a sudden bribing is once again your solution to make sure that you get off innocent because you can't win any other way? Typical fraudulent politician and manipulative gambler... What a pair.
You are gasping at straws here. Tamela was at least a suspect in this court case while Pacco is not. Hearing Pacco's parents would do nothing. The more you try to hide Tamela's job, the more likely I believe she could have a job that could help her commit this crime such as a ship captain or a ship pilot.
We have been flipflopping? Throughout the trial, we have kept the same opinion that the Governor at least was consuming alcohol during that night. And you have been using some sort of "insane troll logic" in this case as you believe once somebody lies once in this court case, they are automatically lying about everything else in this court case.
And we have rejected Pacco's deal as you can clearly see in that PMail just like you did. Providing a hole in somebody's testimony is not merely enough to determining somebody's innocence or guilt.
Kaitlin: Maybe you did rejected it in the pm but you could accepted it in another place where only the 3 of you are... How do we know? We only got your word for it... And that we know means nothing...
Kaitlin: Maybe you did rejected it in the pm but you could accepted it in another place where only the 3 of you are... How do we know? We only got your word for it... And that we know means nothing...
Zelinda: Then ask Pacco himself. He will tell you that we rejected his deal.
Kaitlin: Tell me one thing gov, why are you so nervous? You do have something to hide?
The Gov: No more than anyone else in this courtroom Ms. Harlow, I just dont like courtrooms. They seem all too familiar to me. *Nervously adjusts glasses*
Could i have some water please? I suddenly dont feel too good...
Eva: Check the table beside you, Mr. Byrd.
OT: It's a good job nobody offered The Gov OJ or he may have gotten slightly triggered.
Zelinda: Wil, you have been quite confident that Tamela's job but you never explained the reasons why. It is almost as if you want to us to hide Tamela's true job like if it was going to evidence into determining into proving Tamela's guilt.
If Tamela's job has nothing to deal with this case, what is so wrong about hearing about the job in the first place?
(She's literally not here to say it and I didn't make Tamela so I dont know XD) Im fighting against it because I fail to see what path you're going down with it. Tell me, exactly how her job is relevant. Say she's a doctor for now. What does that mean to your case? She shouldn't have been there because she had to be at an operation? Pfft. Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to combat me.
Kaitlin: For your information, Ms Wakefield didn't have to bribe me, because she doesn't have anything to hide like someone else in this courtroom...
The Gov: You are quite mistaken Ms. Harlow, Ms. Wakefield wont even tell you what she really does for a living. *Cracks knuckles*
Wil: Just saying... She doesn't have to. Like I said, she could be a farmer or a ballerina and she could still be someone who enjoys triathlons... She could even be a corrupted politician who attempted murder!
The Gov: Witholding vital information in a court of law? According to your defense Mr. Sampson, Witholding information on my drunken state from the court was evidence in your eyes to find me guilty...
So by your same logic, Your client witholding information on her true occupation also makes her guilty. You just admitted your own client is guilty of the crimes in question Mr. Sampson. *Laughs*
If the jury see sense they will find the person who's story does'nt match with the eyewitnesse's statement, Who lied about the clothing she was wearing, Lied about her occupation, Lied about her actions on said day, Who had perfect opportunity to commit the crimes in question and who's only defense is that the court is corrupt and the witnesses are unreliable to which they have already proved that they were telling the truth by providing the same statement without any discrepancies, Ms. Wakefield is guilty as charged.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a vacation to Cuba that needs planning.
Wil: Prove to me it's vital? Prove to me that her occupation has anything to do with this case... Like honestly... Would you like her age too? How about her PIN number? Or what about Pacco's parent's names? Maybe that'll give you the information you so desperately think will life you from the hole you dug yourself.
We're not withholding information, its just useless facts and she's blanking out so she hasn't said anything yet (she's not here to say anything XD) She's not lying about her alibi and I didn't say she was lying about anything because she isn't. We've been straightforward in what we know and what we've said. You and Zelinda, however, have been flipflopping about the fact that you were/weren't drunk at the time, and your own lawyer admitted you were lying. THAT'S where you're guilty.
I have evidence to suggest that at least one member of the jury is corrupt... Pacco... Which you considered bribing. Did you not?... What's the matter? I proded at the hole in your story and all of a sudden bribing is once again your solution to make sure that you get off innocent because you can't win any other way? Typical fraudulent politician and manipulative gambler... What a pair.
You are gasping at straws here. Tamela was at least a suspect in this court case while Pacco is not. Hearing Pacco's parents would do nothing. The more you try to hide Tamela's job, the more likely I believe she could have a job that could help her commit this crime such as a ship captain or a ship pilot.
We have been flipflopping? Throughout the trial, we have kept the same opinion that the Governor at least was consuming alcohol during that night. And you have been using some sort of "insane troll logic" in this case as you believe once somebody lies once in this court case, they are automatically lying about everything else in this court case.
And we have rejected Pacco's deal as you can clearly see in that PMail just like you did. Providing a hole in somebody's testimony is not merely enough to determining somebody's innocence or guilt.
That would be awefully convenient wouldn't it. I can assure you that she is neither of those things due to this being a mission and we picked Tamela and the Governor to be the accussed, but I'm sure you'd rather hear it from her mouth.
We've stuck to the fact that Tamela was training. What she was wearing, what she was doing, why she was there. You've changed your story twice now, about how drunk the governor was/wasn't and with no evidence to prove otherwise, the liar is the one who is guilty, and you've been the only one to lie. We can't trust a liar, nor someone who considers bribery.
You've proven your story is nothing but a major hole, that's all we have to prove guilt in this court room. Thus you are defending the guilty party. Your own client considered using bribery to get out of it, and even after being threatened by Pacco, neither my client or I even once considered it. If that isn't guilt taking its toll, I don't know what is.
Kaitlin: For your information, Ms Wakefield didn't have to bribe me, because she doesn't have anything to hide like someone else in this courtroom...
The Gov: You are quite mistaken Ms. Harlow, Ms. Wakefield wont even tell you what she really does for a living. *Cracks knuckles*
Wil: Just saying... She doesn't have to. Like I said, she could be a farmer or a ballerina and she could still be someone who enjoys triathlons... She could even be a corrupted politician who attempted murder!
The Gov: Witholding vital information in a court of law? According to your defense Mr. Sampson, Witholding information on my drunken state from the court was evidence in your eyes to find me guilty...
So by your same logic, Your client witholding information on her true occupation also makes her guilty. You just admitted your own client is guilty of the crimes in question Mr. Sampson. *Laughs*
If the jury see sense they will find the person who's story does'nt match with the eyewitnesse's statement, Who lied about the clothing she was wearing, Lied about her occupation, Lied about her actions on said day, Who had perfect opportunity to commit the crimes in question and who's only defense is that the court is corrupt and the witnesses are unreliable to which they have already proved that they were telling the truth by providing the same statement without any discrepancies, Ms. Wakefield is guilty as charged.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a vacation to Cuba that needs planning.
Wil: Prove to me it's vital? Prove to me that her occupation has anything to do with this case... Like honestly... Would you like her age too? How about her PIN number? Or what about Pacco's parent's names? Maybe that'll give you the information you so desperately think will life you from the hole you dug yourself.
We're not withholding information, its just useless facts and she's blanking out so she hasn't said anything yet (she's not here to say anything XD) She's not lying about her alibi and I didn't say she was lying about anything because she isn't. We've been straightforward in what we know and what we've said. You and Zelinda, however, have been flipflopping about the fact that you were/weren't drunk at the time, and your own lawyer admitted you were lying. THAT'S where you're guilty.
I have evidence to suggest that at least one member of the jury is corrupt... Pacco... Which you considered bribing. Did you not?... What's the matter? I proded at the hole in your story and all of a sudden bribing is once again your solution to make sure that you get off innocent because you can't win any other way? Typical fraudulent politician and manipulative gambler... What a pair.
You are gasping at straws here. Tamela was at least a suspect in this court case while Pacco is not. Hearing Pacco's parents would do nothing. The more you try to hide Tamela's job, the more likely I believe she could have a job that could help her commit this crime such as a ship captain or a ship pilot.
We have been flipflopping? Throughout the trial, we have kept the same opinion that the Governor at least was consuming alcohol during that night. And you have been using some sort of "insane troll logic" in this case as you believe once somebody lies once in this court case, they are automatically lying about everything else in this court case.
And we have rejected Pacco's deal as you can clearly see in that PMail just like you did. Providing a hole in somebody's testimony is not merely enough to determining somebody's innocence or guilt.
That would be awefully convenient wouldn't it. I can assure you that she is neither of those things due to this being a mission and we picked Tamela and the Governor to be the accussed, but I'm sure you'd rather hear it from her mouth.
We've stuck to the fact that Tamela was training. What she was wearing, what she was doing, why she was there. You've changed your story twice now, about how drunk the governor was/wasn't and with no evidence to prove otherwise, the liar is the one who is guilty, and you've been the only one to lie. We can't trust a liar, nor someone who considers bribery.
You've proven your story is nothing but a major hole, that's all we have to prove guilt in this court room. Thus you are defending the guilty party. Your own client considered using bribery to get out of it, and even after being threatened by Pacco, neither my client or I even once considered it. If that isn't guilt taking its toll, I don't know what is.
At this point, it probably does not matter which of the mouth I heard because even if I did hear it from her mouth, she would have not told me that she was one of those two things. Even after I accused of you withholding her job info because of it being more proof into proving Tamela was the culprit, you still dodged the question and you didn't actually tells us her actual occupation.
"With no evidence to prove otherwise" The same can be said for you. You have zero proof about anything that Tamela stated was true.
Since when did my client ever considered using bribery? Don't put words into other people's mouths.
Kaitlin: For your information, Ms Wakefield didn't have to bribe me, because she doesn't have anything to hide like someone else in this courtroom...
The Gov: You are quite mistaken Ms. Harlow, Ms. Wakefield wont even tell you what she really does for a living. *Cracks knuckles*
Wil: Just saying... She doesn't have to. Like I said, she could be a farmer or a ballerina and she could still be someone who enjoys triathlons... She could even be a corrupted politician who attempted murder!
The Gov: Witholding vital information in a court of law? According to your defense Mr. Sampson, Witholding information on my drunken state from the court was evidence in your eyes to find me guilty...
So by your same logic, Your client witholding information on her true occupation also makes her guilty. You just admitted your own client is guilty of the crimes in question Mr. Sampson. *Laughs*
If the jury see sense they will find the person who's story does'nt match with the eyewitnesse's statement, Who lied about the clothing she was wearing, Lied about her occupation, Lied about her actions on said day, Who had perfect opportunity to commit the crimes in question and who's only defense is that the court is corrupt and the witnesses are unreliable to which they have already proved that they were telling the truth by providing the same statement without any discrepancies, Ms. Wakefield is guilty as charged.
Now if you will excuse me, I have a vacation to Cuba that needs planning.
Wil: Prove to me it's vital? Prove to me that her occupation has anything to do with this case... Like honestly... Would you like her age too? How about her PIN number? Or what about Pacco's parent's names? Maybe that'll give you the information you so desperately think will life you from the hole you dug yourself.
We're not withholding information, its just useless facts and she's blanking out so she hasn't said anything yet (she's not here to say anything XD) She's not lying about her alibi and I didn't say she was lying about anything because she isn't. We've been straightforward in what we know and what we've said. You and Zelinda, however, have been flipflopping about the fact that you were/weren't drunk at the time, and your own lawyer admitted you were lying. THAT'S where you're guilty.
I have evidence to suggest that at least one member of the jury is corrupt... Pacco... Which you considered bribing. Did you not?... What's the matter? I proded at the hole in your story and all of a sudden bribing is once again your solution to make sure that you get off innocent because you can't win any other way? Typical fraudulent politician and manipulative gambler... What a pair.
You are gasping at straws here. Tamela was at least a suspect in this court case while Pacco is not. Hearing Pacco's parents would do nothing. The more you try to hide Tamela's job, the more likely I believe she could have a job that could help her commit this crime such as a ship captain or a ship pilot.
We have been flipflopping? Throughout the trial, we have kept the same opinion that the Governor at least was consuming alcohol during that night. And you have been using some sort of "insane troll logic" in this case as you believe once somebody lies once in this court case, they are automatically lying about everything else in this court case.
And we have rejected Pacco's deal as you can clearly see in that PMail just like you did. Providing a hole in somebody's testimony is not merely enough to determining somebody's innocence or guilt.
That would be awefully convenient wouldn't it. I can assure you that she is neither of those things due to this being a mission and we picked Tamela and the Governor to be the accussed, but I'm sure you'd rather hear it from her mouth.
We've stuck to the fact that Tamela was training. What she was wearing, what she was doing, why she was there. You've changed your story twice now, about how drunk the governor was/wasn't and with no evidence to prove otherwise, the liar is the one who is guilty, and you've been the only one to lie. We can't trust a liar, nor someone who considers bribery.
You've proven your story is nothing but a major hole, that's all we have to prove guilt in this court room. Thus you are defending the guilty party. Your own client considered using bribery to get out of it, and even after being threatened by Pacco, neither my client or I even once considered it. If that isn't guilt taking its toll, I don't know what is.
At this point, it probably does not matter which of the mouth I heard because even if I did hear it from her mouth, she would have not told me that she was one of those two things. Even after I accused of you withholding her job info because of it being more proof into proving Tamela was the culprit, you still dodged the question and you didn't actually tells us her actual occupation.
"With no evidence to prove otherwise" The same can be said for you. You have zero proof about anything that Tamela stated was true.
Since when did my client ever considered using bribery? Don't put words into other people's mouths.
I don't have the answer... Literally... I am not Tamela I do not have her brain. She isn't around, how am I able to give you an answer? XD
Yet we haven't admitted to lying, which you have.
"My lawyer and i will consider your offer privately and then decide what is best for my case." - Governor 2017
Zelinda: Wil, you are now a liar as well. You try hiding her occupation very well. You stated you are very well aware that she is neither a Sea Captain or a Sea Pilot but now, you just stated that you do not know her occupation. How can you not know her occupation without knowing that she is neither a Sea Captain or a Sea Pilot?
Comments
Ooh, sounds like fun!
Wish there was still an agree button.
The Gov: I... I, Um... I was... I Dont remember. My memory is hazy, I'm sorry i cant be of more help.
The Gov: Certainly not, I need a vacation to recover from my last, Where i was wrongfully accused of human trafficking! That's not my sort of buisness, I prefer less messy operations. *Mumbles something under his breath about tax evasion*
Kaitlin: Mmm....
Zelinda: Objection! The witness ended up stating that he was lying about the first part but the reason about why he lied in the first place has deal with a completely different reason other than whatever he is innocent or guilty.
If Tamela's job has nothing to deal with this case, what is so wrong about hearing about the job in the first place?
You are gasping at straws here. Tamela was at least a suspect in this court case while Pacco is not. Hearing Pacco's parents would do nothing. The more you try to hide Tamela's job, the more likely I believe she could have a job that could help her commit this crime such as a ship captain or a ship pilot.
We have been flipflopping? Throughout the trial, we have kept the same opinion that the Governor at least was consuming alcohol during that night. And you have been using some sort of "insane troll logic" in this case as you believe once somebody lies once in this court case, they are automatically lying about everything else in this court case.
And we have rejected Pacco's deal as you can clearly see in that PMail just like you did. Providing a hole in somebody's testimony is not merely enough to determining somebody's innocence or guilt.
Zelinda: Then ask Pacco himself. He will tell you that we rejected his deal.
OT: It's a good job nobody offered The Gov OJ or he may have gotten slightly triggered.
(She's literally not here to say it and I didn't make Tamela so I dont know XD) Im fighting against it because I fail to see what path you're going down with it. Tell me, exactly how her job is relevant. Say she's a doctor for now. What does that mean to your case? She shouldn't have been there because she had to be at an operation? Pfft. Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to combat me.
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/975801/mini-mole-season-3-a-sims-4-interactive-game-show/.html
That would be awefully convenient wouldn't it. I can assure you that she is neither of those things due to this being a mission and we picked Tamela and the Governor to be the accussed, but I'm sure you'd rather hear it from her mouth.
We've stuck to the fact that Tamela was training. What she was wearing, what she was doing, why she was there. You've changed your story twice now, about how drunk the governor was/wasn't and with no evidence to prove otherwise, the liar is the one who is guilty, and you've been the only one to lie. We can't trust a liar, nor someone who considers bribery.
You've proven your story is nothing but a major hole, that's all we have to prove guilt in this court room. Thus you are defending the guilty party. Your own client considered using bribery to get out of it, and even after being threatened by Pacco, neither my client or I even once considered it. If that isn't guilt taking its toll, I don't know what is.
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/975801/mini-mole-season-3-a-sims-4-interactive-game-show/.html
Wil: Or hit you with a guitar...
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/975801/mini-mole-season-3-a-sims-4-interactive-game-show/.html
At this point, it probably does not matter which of the mouth I heard because even if I did hear it from her mouth, she would have not told me that she was one of those two things. Even after I accused of you withholding her job info because of it being more proof into proving Tamela was the culprit, you still dodged the question and you didn't actually tells us her actual occupation.
"With no evidence to prove otherwise" The same can be said for you. You have zero proof about anything that Tamela stated was true.
Since when did my client ever considered using bribery? Don't put words into other people's mouths.
I don't have the answer... Literally... I am not Tamela I do not have her brain. She isn't around, how am I able to give you an answer? XD
Yet we haven't admitted to lying, which you have.
"My lawyer and i will consider your offer privately and then decide what is best for my case." - Governor 2017
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/975801/mini-mole-season-3-a-sims-4-interactive-game-show/.html
"I don't have the answer"
Quite the contradiction
OT: Jake honestly tell me, does she look like a sea captain to you XD
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/975801/mini-mole-season-3-a-sims-4-interactive-game-show/.html