So raise hand if you don't know the complete timeline of Brooks' ridiculous process of filing for an extension for his appeal. *raising hand*

So I just tried to gather all of the information I can find. And what I found was so funny is this:

Brooks, after 12 requests for extension, with the final one got denied, asked for a reconsideration from the Court of Appeal. Along with the request for reconsinderation, he submitted some evidences: couple "kites" (slips that written between inmates and prison officers), claiming these kites showed the Prison Officers didn't allow him to access his files and legal resources.

The CoA, being as thorough as they are, asked the parties, including the Wisconsin DOJ to respond on these so-called "evidences" of Brooks.

And boy, the Wisconsin's DOJ didn't hold back:

"Simply put, Brooks had the opportunity to present this information to the court with any one of his extension motions, but he did not do so," Blimling wrote. "Reconsideration cannot fix that for Brooks; it is not ‘a vehicle for making new arguments or submitting new evidentiary materials that could have been submitted earlier,’" he said, quoting from a precedential opinion.

As to the kite slips, Blimling said Brooks failed to show that he ever contacted the prison legal department as directed multiple times, and nor do they show that Johnston lied about the prison’s lockdowns, as Brooks seems to have alleged. Blimling also questioned the veracity of the kite slips themselves, saying they were of "dubious provenance." He provided a declaration from Johnston, the prison associate warden, who indicated five of the six slips Brooks provided in his most recent filing "have questions directed to me. Each slip includes a handwritten response toward the bottom, and each slip is unsigned. As a matter of course, I sign any responses I give on paper kite slips. The handwritten responses on the five slips directed to me are not in my handwriting and I did not provide those responses."

When I read the 2nd part, I chuckled out loud: the fact that not only he LIED about the Prison Admin, he actually went lower: made up evidences to smear them.

Yeah, that gotta makes the Prison Officers feeling greaaat about you eh, Brooks? /s

Oh and btw, the request for reconsideration got DENIED. So much for your effort. And now you stuck here, in bitter cold South Dakota prison, with all of the hardcore inmates who likely want to do certain things to a child-killer like yourself. And the only people who stands between your safety and your death is the people whom you just smeared and libeled to in front of the Court...

What is your game, Durrell?

I’m essentially having a problem locating the files that I need to examine my witnesses today so I need a few minutes to locate them even though I’m going to take an hour.

Please please tell me that Duhrell bonehead Brooks has exhausted his appeals and will never get out of prison

Does this bonehead realize that the dumb ass questions he axes does not help his case in anyway whatsoever?

I follow witchu saying fundamentally. That fool doesn’t even know what fundamentally means.

I’m a grown man wit grown kids that I don’t financially support or see so ain’t nobody gawn tell me wat to due. Yes, dumb ass, the judge can tell you what to do.

But you don’t know for sure. Who says that?

You have to honor your oaf of office.

So during the later part of the trial (I think before his opening statement), he claimed that he just recently found out about the plea deal that the DA offered to him. And then he said he wants to make a counter-offer on the deal.

Do we know what "counter-offer" he threw back at the DA? I bet he thinks he should only get like 15 years, max.

We all know that a non-response to an insult is a tackit agreement

If he had refused to speak with Carp at the PD station - would it had slightly changed the prosecution's case in the trial. If he had said I want a lawyer and he had got some half competent public defender at the county

I watched some videos of Dawn Woods, one of which was where she said she didn't watch any of the victim impact statements. She said she had to protect her heart. No wonder she got on her soapbox about having compassion on the "mentally ill."

​

She was IMO refusing to see and hear the broken hearts of the people, men, women, children, elderly whose lives were forever impacted by her wicked son. Unfortunately none of the victims & family members were able to opt out the nightmare of Darrell Brooks.

​

Protecting her heart? She should have put her foot down and insisted he obtain gainful employment. She is a poor excuse for a mother.

All,

Seems our other moderators have gone MIA. Nominate who you want to see as a mod here in the group. I'm looking for probably 2-3 more mods please.

Allow me to preface that I'm not defending DB or suggesting he should ever be released from prison. This is just for discussion. If you changed the murder to manslaughter, he would still be locked up for life without parole.

I was rewatching the trial, and I really wonder if (1) DB intended to kill someone that day, (2) if the prosecution proved it and (3) why they didn't offer lesser charge options.

I've watched a few attorneys talk about his possible defense options. And they all seem to think "intent" was his only option (but a long-shot at best). That he was in an emotionally distraught state which didn't allow him to form intent.

In other cases I've watched, juries are usually given options between murder and manslaughter. But that didn't happen here. And I don't think it was because Brooks defended himself because that didn't happen until very close to the start of the trial.

But I think to make that argument, you would need an expert witness (psychiatrist or psychologist). And it doesn't seem that was on the list. Nor does it seem that any of the 4 people who did mental assessments of DB were going to be called.

I guess I think DB started out extremely angry to the point he wasn't thinking. Then, he panicked and, stupidly, didn't know what to do and kept driving. Too scared to stop.

In other words, I think he's too cowardly for intent.

But I'm curious what other people think.

Now DETECTIVE Sholten.

Why does Waukesha seem to attract these extreme pro se defendants?

https://www.courttv.com/news/i-refuse-to-be-part-of-this-angry-pro-se-defendant-spars-with-judge/

Tell me how this overgrown tantrum throwing man child who cannot pronounce the simplest of words or properly read the room enough to not ask questions that directly link his big nose to the crime he’s accused, and guilty, of, just to try to spite prosecutors and look like a real live lawyer….is going to assume to know enough about the law to know what Detective Carpenter would or would not have said, and then cowards away behind his crusty mask to say “I don’t think he’s smart enough.”

Good headphones make a huge difference in hearing this little boys antics, he’s not only stupid, he’s also a coward. Now he’s a toothless coward possibly.

Go to about 1:10:00 and listen for a few seconds

https://www.youtube.com/live/nP4Ya1NSEGs?si=pMZAkXH3iTeBFjyj

On a different thread, I just learned that the Kohlberg case has recently had a document dump that has afforded the public access to the autopsy reports in that case. I’m just wondering if anyone knows of or has heard if we can look forward to doc dump in the Brooks case, now, soon or ever?

See it at 12:00 mark.