“Fortunately, no bloodbath occurred here, so don’t focus on that possibility. Finally, I want you to apply the law and not t-shirt slogans.”

Her argument was that absent of any other significant charge, all this did was remind the jury of inflammatory rhetoric of the Crown and individuals in the courtroom. Regarding the second sentence, the judge just stopped her and was like, “Really, I don’t see how this be any more clear in alleviating prejudice. DON’T focus on t-shirt slogans.” When she started to repeat her argument, Mr. Justice G. just stopped her and told her to give up much as happened to your co-counsel. On the second issue, she focused on the repetition of the word bloodbath. After five minutes of arguments on this, Mr. Justice G. sits there, thinks for a sec and goes, “Okay, I’m not convinced, BUT the word ‘fortunately’ is problematic because…”

It was like he made a third oral argument.