It says it right in the motion which was linked here. The motion was made in the hours before the autopsy was scheduled. If you want to believe the defense lied, go for it. JMO
And I seriously doubt that an experienced ME needed the defence to tell them how to do an autopsy on murdered children.
A mother’s love knows no boundaries.
Right.
I really do not know.
Do you have a link for that? Because I do not understand how that is possible. Why would the ME not try to collect DNA from the neck areas? I thought the judge basically told them don't tell ME how to do their job they already know how to do it. But I could be wrong.
I just reread it, and that’s exactly how I interpreted it. The ME refused to say what specifically they were going to do, and the defense countered with a motion to compel the collection of that evidence.
True, but there are chemicals in crude oil that possibly could destroy DNA.
Of course, they are not medical personnel and really are showing their ignorance by trying to direct the ME.
Not sure — because they are married they may share the debt. But unless loan terms forbid it someone can take out a loan alone, add someone elses name (that isn’t a spouse) to the title w/a quitclaim deed and if the borrower defaults the 2nd person isn’t responsible for the debt. It won’t show up on the 2nd person’s credit report but they will be homeless when the lender forecloses.
x2
BBM. That kind of makes me think that the defence team is inexperienced and think that they can throw shade on a non involved professional medical examiner.
While it would be interesting, the fact that the judge denied it (and was expected to) - for me - was all I need to know that it was a sham move. The idea that an ME would not check ANY AND EVERY body that has been murdered for DNA evidence in this day and age sounds incredulous to me (IMO).
