The defense has to try and explain away the obvious... there isn't a single 'bite' mark where it looks like he was grabbed by the animal... but yet we have only linear tears... maybe teeth... maybe claws... who knows.
You’re making my point for me. He was not completely covered and impossible to see. He was partially covered. So it’s not a sign of Karen’s guilt that she saw him.true - but
1) we can see what snow was there at 6am and have undisputed testimony he was "covered." to me that doesn't mean no part of his body was potentially visible... but you know... he was pretty covered. things are usually shades of grey.
2) we can convert the precipitation data to approx. inches of snow.
3) a body doesn't need to be buried or completely covered in snow to be obscured to some degree. if you have the stomach, go check out Ukraine war footage for endless examples.
For crying out loud it takes this long to bring to light what the cw has so desperately been trying to hide from the jury. 29 days of trial with distancing, ignoring and obfustcation around those arm wounds. Will the jury see that the cw were trying to distract from those wounds at all costs and draw the correct conclusions? MooHere it comes..the dog bite theory!!
The defense has to try and explain away the obvious... there isn't a single 'bite' mark where it looks like he was grabbed by the animal... but yet we have only linear tears... maybe teeth... maybe claws... who knows.
What a way to try to question her knowledge on dog bites/attacks hey...Nice one, Lally proves witness doesn't kknow about drop box, Wowee
Shades of grey.You’re making my point for me. He was not completely covered and impossible to see. He was partially covered. So it’s not a sign of Karen’s guilt that she saw him.
He's fumbling, won't be able to put a dent in her testimony imo, good!!! Calls yet another sidebar, poor old Lally!What a way to try to question her knowledge on dog bites/attacks hey...