foreverlennon
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2023
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 131
I certainly agree with that.I can tell already that AT is going to get on my last nerve when this trial begins.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I certainly agree with that.I can tell already that AT is going to get on my last nerve when this trial begins.
I'll say! Totally agreed. And the whole time the "process" drags on, I'm going to be picturing BK lurking over her shoulder, suggestions for the survey, maybe. Ideas on how to inject a need for the demolished house back into the "process." Ideas for term papers, maybe something on the reinterpretation of "alibi" in the legal lexicon. Papers that never get written because he's trying to finish proofreading in front of a firing squad.I can tell already that AT is going to get on my last nerve when this trial begins.
Of course. I haven’t seen a thread on WS where a defense attorney doing their job wasn’t on most people commenter’s nerves.I can tell already that AT is going to get on my last nerve when this trial begins.
Not that I see. How could they possibly explain the DNA on the knife sheath snap with the knife sheath being found under one of the victims? The only stories I can think of are highly implausible (planted by the real killer, left from an earlier visit to the house (BK or another witness would need to testify he was at the house earlier).Is there any possible scenario where we see an "OJ Simpson" or "Casey Anthony" outcome here? BK goes to trial, and some glitch, or Juror sway, and BK is found "Not Guilty", so he just walks out into society a free man?
Juries can be unpredictable, but based on what the Defense has attempted to attack, it looks like a rock solid case to me, following a rock solid investigation.Is there any possible scenario where we see an "OJ Simpson" or "Casey Anthony" outcome here? BK goes to trial, and some glitch, or Juror sway, and BK is found "Not Guilty", so he just walks out into society a free man?
For this reason, the Defense will likely try to confuse DNA analysis. Wrong DNA, wrong car, wrong description. I've seen it in other trials. No real alibi or defense, just challenge and conflate as many extraneous details as possible in the hopes that one will equate with doubt for one juror.Not that I see. How could they possibly explain the DNA on the knife sheath snap with the knife sheath being found under one of the victims? The only stories I can think of are highly implausible (planted by the real killer, left from an earlier visit to the house (BK or another witness would need to testify he was at the house earlier).
The OJ Simpson trial was considered "rock solid" with DNA evidence. It was Judge Ito who allowed the defense to suggest police tampering with the evidence as a possible defense, despite absolutely no evidence that supported that theory.For this reason, the Defense will likely try to confuse DNA analysis. Wrong DNA, wrong car, wrong description. I've seen it in other trials. No real alibi or defense, just challenge and conflate as many extraneous details as possible in the hopes that one will equate with doubt for one juror.
JMO
When "doing their job" consists of trashing the victim and twisting facts , as often occurs in high profile cases, yes, that type of defense attorney gets on my one last nerve!Of course. I haven’t seen a thread on WS where a defense attorney doing their job wasn’t on most people commenter’s nerves.
MOO
I wonder what the motive was for this crime. I really thought that would've been made public long ago. Random slaying just doesn't feel right.
The cells found on the snap of the sheath were not blood cell, they were skin cells. The DNA in this case is about touch DNA.Agree, I think the defense will use "it's not my knife"... he looked at knifes at a store, flea market or tag sale and cut his finger removing from holder and/or LE planted the blood.
He has a pretty savvy defense team, the more noise they make, more media coverage.
Moo
Good thought. A lot of times we don't ever truly know the motive, except there is a sick individual willing to murder by some distorted idea in their head. Random slayings happen all the time, although I agree most are killed by somebody they know.I wonder what the motive was for this crime. I really thought that would've been made public long ago. Random slaying just doesn't feel right.
Try as AT might, a good DNA analyst will be able to explain to jurors like they are 5. Not being sarcastic at all, you need a good expert who can make the jury comfortable and talk to them on a lay person's level. Most average jurors are not going to know about DNA beyond the basics.For this reason, the Defense will likely try to confuse DNA analysis. Wrong DNA, wrong car, wrong description. I've seen it in other trials. No real alibi or defense, just challenge and conflate as many extraneous details as possible in the hopes that one will equate with doubt for one juror.
JMO
I respect a good, professional defense attorney. We must have them for our judicial process to work. I might not like or agree with everything they do lol, but it their JOB to give the Defendant a vigorous and competent defense. 6th Amendment rights are essential IMO.Of course. I haven’t seen a thread on WS where a defense attorney doing their job wasn’t on most people commenter’s nerves.
MOO
I wonder as well, but I don't think it was random. It were random, I would have a hard time accepting this level of butchery as his first outing. I believe LE would have connected him to other violent crimes by now.I wonder what the motive was for this crime. I really thought that would've been made public long ago. Random slaying just doesn't feel right.
ThanksThe cells found on the snap of the sheath were not blood cell, they were skin cells. The DNA in this case is about touch DNA.
What is the source for this? I've not seen anything documenting that the dna was from skin cells....The cells found on the snap of the sheath were not blood cell, they were skin cells. The DNA in this case is about touch DNA.
I doubt there is any source information for it, as testing to differentiate cell types with this type of DNA sample isn’t typically performed. It is, though, a reasonable assumption that the DNA came from touching the snap since we’ve not seen any reported info about blood on the sheath.What is the source for this? I've not seen anything documenting that the dna was from skin cells....