lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
bathroom brandy snifter -- 4 prints
cross by LKB
cross by LKB
I didn't catch if it was the left one or not?
Someone just posted that it was the left shoe. We'll see!sunny, I don't think she said which one. I expect that will come out when we hear from the guy who did the comparisons.
Thanks, Jeana. Did you hear this witness, Donna Brandelli say that some mfgrs advertise that their guns RESIST fingerprints? Their target group, so to speak, is the careful criminal!! How despicable!!!
I'm sure glad someone else caught that moment! There's a reason the jury's been there (not quite) 2 mo. and that's in large part to the defense plodding cross-exams and motion hearings!!!LKB: Take your time. They've been here 2 mos. already.
I'll make it simple, yes, Lana's upper front teeth were broken and expelled outward.Greetings,
Thinking of a few things... Didn't read the whole other thread...
Question... Were there broken teeth? Seems there was some testimony on teeth material? Or was it just some white on the gun consistent with the teeth material?
If there were broken teeth, was this consistent with a gun being shoved "into" someone's mouth (pieces within the mouth, on tongue, under tongue? Who would shove a gun into their mouth, breaking their own teeth, and in order to commit suicide. Suicide by gun would be to do something painlessly, you wouldn't want to hurt your teeth going in to your mouth. OR if there were broken teeth, would this be consistent with a backfire of a gun (teeth material brought into the lips - outside of the teeth area, or outside the mouth)? Guess the main question is, were there broken teeth.
W
Dale FaliconeNew witness Dale ___icone -- sorry, did the print comparisons
I really doubt it....prints are more fragile than that. Lana was walking on those shoes all night long, presumably on carpeted floors, so even if the print was in the raised arch area, it would have been smudged.I have a theory who the print on the shoe belongs to--- the salesperson!! They were new.
The defense is going to say that an investigator touched the shoe without gloves on and it proves that the scene was contaminated!!!