Irmese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 766
- Reaction score
- 5,807
I can see why there are questions like that. The evidence is circumstantial, there's no body, only blood evidence, a couple of tooth fragments that can't be definitively connected to KB, the timeline, and KK's testimony. The problem with KK's testimony is that she is admitting a role in covering up the death, but she never saw the body, even when it was burned. There isn't much plainly tying PF to KB's disappearance that doesn't take a lot of explanation. I can't wait to see what the defense will present. I imagine it will consist of attacking the expert testimony on cell phone records and forensics to try to insert doubt. We (WS) have had a lot of discussion and time to connect the dots and we are used to watching cases like this. I have no doubt of his guilt and while I feel like KK is a hideous person, without her there would be a much weaker case. I don't really think the question about KB being drug-tested at work means that they believe she was using or drinking, and just trying to ascertain if drug-testing KB would have been warranted. If she was having drug or alcohol problems and had gone into treatment for it, she may have had some period of mandatory drug-testing afterwards. I think any questions from the jury is good, as long as they are understanding the evidence presented.I never for a second believed Kelsey would have been on drugs from what I have learned about her, but why does it even matter if she was to a jury-does that give someone the right to bash their head in with a baseball bat?
Also, I’m highly surprised an aviation company wouldn’t do routine drug testing, just as an observation.
Just feel jury could be asking better questions.