Hey Marina2, check out what I found on Dr. Lee: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E3D91E38F933A05756C0A96E958260 This is some pretty interesting info. I am almost positive that based on the facts in this article, and the court cases I've seen in the past involving Dr. Lee (including but not limited to William Kennedy-Smith & OJ), that there will be a huge fiasco created regarding evidence LE collected and their methods of collection. It is my prediction that he helps to tear apart the OCSO. I'm tellin' ya, he's going to try to create reasonable doubt. It doesn't take alot to prove that since this is a murder case, knowing that the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he already found more hairs and trace evidence not found by OCSO could very well be reason enough. I pray, if KC is as guilty as I believe her actions (or lack of) show her to be, that she doesn't end up walking. I don't believe that once you're charged with murder it can be lessened to manslaughter...or am I misunderstanding something?
Want to know why people like Dr. Lee tear apart the prosecution's evidence? Because once the prosecution gets the results they want to prove their case, they stop testing the other evidence!
How would you feel if there were 3 people who used a car that a crime was commited in and your hair came up positive on the first test. Do you know that the prosecution could then tell the lab to stop testing any other hairs? If LE feels you are the one that did it and it was easy to prove you were there they would stop looking for anyone else even though you told them two other people used the car? They could then say "check to see if HER finger prints are in the car. Not, are there any other person's finger prints, just yours!
The prosecution could say in court that YOU were the only one in the car and they have lab evidence and finger prints to back it up! The jury would never know about the other two people!
Unless .... you had a good defense attorney who asked the right questions! They would ask if there was any other evidence submitted to the lab. If so, was that evidence tested? No? Then he would ask for that other evidence and have it tested. Ditto on the finger prints. Did LE figure out who the other finger prints belonged to? No? Well, then he would request those prints from LE and have them identified.
Come court day, when the prosecution says YOU were there and the finger prints and hair analysis PROVES IT, therefore YOU commited the crime, the defense attorney can honestly say there were two other people who's hair was in the car and who's finger prints were there.
He would then ask "did you investigate the other two people?". If LE had decided YOU did it and did not eliminate the others because they did not have that evidence evaluated YOU would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is it starting to make sense now? This is a very common situation in our courts today and it is why a decent defense attorney does all of this "stuff" you all call stupid. I would expect and PRAY that an attorney I paid money to defend me to do this type of stuff!
If the prosecution is so afraid to test the other "evidence" and eliminate whoever else it points to, I would seriously question their case!
EDIT: Please understand when I say "you", I mean everyone who calls Baez stupid for doing the things he does and does not understand why he is doing them. NOT YOU personally!
