Willow Knight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reaction score
- 7,790
To me, it reads as a bit like a threat to hold jury members hostage if they don’t get their way.
jmo
Exactly the way I took it.
To me, it reads as a bit like a threat to hold jury members hostage if they don’t get their way.
jmo
Defense team has a flair for exaggeration, imo.I feel this is a bit exaggerated, but maybe someone can jump in on the procedural side?
Most of the Indiana cases I read on this SODDI issues are all post trial appeals, so this route is fairly normal. Also the D already presented all it's evidence on this matter for the hearing, so I presume all of this content can just be adopted without calling the witnesses yet again?
I don't know how "offer of proof" works
The last thing you want to do is piss off the people that are deciding your fate.To me, it reads as a bit like a threat to hold jury members hostage if they don’t get their way.
jmo
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it invalidates the entire field. I was merely offering some background information on the subject as a whole, and a view that there is evidence for it, and against it.A lot of blood-splatter analysis has been proven false. Mostly, because of bad actors, like Deaver in the M Peterson case 'The Staircase': Who Is Duane Deaver and Where Is He Now?
Just because we see people using exaggerated statements/theatrics, like Henry Lee and his ketchup bubbles on the stand, it does not invalidate basic science like - blood bubbles that contain air, flow of blood, blood volume etc. This has been a topic argued in many cases in the early 2010s and mostly put to bed. As with all forensics, there are cases where the science has been misrepresented. That does not invalidate the whole field.
All MOO
I know who I see making exaggerated statements in the three day hearing and it wasn't the BPA expert. JMOA lot of blood-splatter analysis has been proven false. Mostly, because of bad actors, like Deaver in the M Peterson case 'The Staircase': Who Is Duane Deaver and Where Is He Now?
Just because we see people using exaggerated statements/theatrics, like Henry Lee and his ketchup bubbles on the stand, it does not invalidate basic science like - blood bubbles that contain air, flow of blood, blood volume etc. This has been a topic argued in many cases in the early 2010s and mostly put to bed. As with all forensics, there are cases where the science has been misrepresented. That does not invalidate the whole field.
All MOO
I have only seen it vaguely mentioned by people that were at the hearings, nothing specific. Some folks here have repeated the claims and my requests for substantiation have gone unanswered. Largely, I simply doubt the actual substance of the claim even though it may be factual on its face. (eg It may be true there was not a specific time of death in the autopsy report as no one witnessed the murders; there is probably an estimation and time range, but that’s not the question that was asked).I’ve seen it mentioned several times here that TOD is not mentioned on the Autopsy Reports. Since the Autopsy Reports have not been released publicly I’m wondering where this is coming from.
Is there a link to this information or is this rumour?
TIA
This post shows the origin:I’ve seen it mentioned several times here that TOD is not mentioned on the Autopsy Reports. Since the Autopsy Reports have not been released publicly I’m wondering where this is coming from.
Is there a link to this information or is this rumour?
TIA
I guess my thing is that Cicero’s testimony wasn’t really all that crazy. Were there pools of blood? That’s something pretty factual. Was blood soaked into clothing that the defense claimed was largely bloodless? Again, that’s just fact. His expertise in this subject was to debunk the idea than an F or rune was painted on the tree. Even if you throw out that part of the testimony, the actual facts that were revealed are completely contrary to narratives the defense has pushed in court filings. The defense basically went as far as they could towards lying without actually lying.To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it invalidates the entire field. I was merely offering some background information on the subject as a whole, and a view that there is evidence for it, and against it.
thanks for tracking that down. reporter notes that say "Baldwin says". Got it.This post shows the origin:
Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #190'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #190
In addition, it might be SOP for that official to document TOD differently, not into notes but directly into a report. IMO TOD isn't an observation, it's a conclusion. And, as such, wouldn't be in the notes but would be the culmination of them. In other words, upon review of the notes (the totality of the autopsy as anotated, the TOD will be IMO a range. Based on multiple data points and professional experience/expertise.thanks for tracking that down. reporter notes that say "Baldwin says". Got it.
I haven’t read his testimony yet so I offer no opinion on it, nor on the validity or lack thereof in filings from the D.I guess my thing is that Cicero’s testimony wasn’t really all that crazy. Were there pools of blood? That’s something pretty factual. Was blood soaked into clothing that the defense claimed was largely bloodless? Again, that’s just fact. His expertise in this subject was to debunk the idea than an F or rune was painted on the tree. Even if you throw out that part of the testimony, the actual facts that were revealed are completely contrary to narratives the defense has pushed in court filings. The defense basically went as far as they could towards lying without actually lying.
All my opinion.
Brace yourself. The next conspiracy theory is likely to be that the girls were killed prior to February 13th. It's absurd and I hate the thought that there are people that will try to push this idea, but it is out there.
If the D feels strongly enough that they can raise that doubt with even a single juror, I could see them using it.
JMO
yep, I will have to wait for trial to know how the TODs were arrived at. But I have followed enough murder cases to know there is very real and long established science involved in how that conclusion is reached.In addition, it might be SOP for that official to document TOD differently, not into notes but directly into a report. IMO TOD isn't an observation, it's a conclusion. And, as such, wouldn't be in the notes but would be the culmination of them. In other words, upon review of the notes (the totality of the autopsy as anotated, the TOD will be IMO a range. Based on multiple data points and professional experience/expertise.
That it's not in the notes doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or even that there's anything amiss!
JMO
Wow! This reads like an either/or....Either rule in favor, or the jury will wait, possibly for days. Funny thing is, if the 'offer of proof' isn't conclusive, then what happens?I think the trial may be halted at the start anyhow, as the D said in their appeal, they plan to provide their offer of proof to the judge to allow the SODDI defense. They said the jury may have to sit and wait it out for days.
View attachment 530818
Yup. And it's not reached during the autopsy but after it. Based on the information derived from it.yep, I will have to wait for trial to know how the TODs were arrived at. But I have followed enough murder cases to know there is very real and long established science involved in how that conclusion is reached.
In that case, seems to me that the defense still preserved their rights for appeal, post conviction. JMOWow! This reads like an either/or....Either rule in favor, or the jury will wait, possibly for days. Funny thing is, if the 'offer of proof' isn't conclusive, then what happens?
MOO, the whole statement sounds somewhat threatening, ouch! Give me my candy, or I'll throw a fit