Kinda related: Does the DT have a forensic scientist witness lined up to contradict the ME? Will the DT be calling the ME to the stand? Does anyone know? [I thought there was a witness list somewhere]
I don't think so and there's no real reason to provide a different opinion of the sequence, from a defense perspective.
I'm guessing the State cannot bring in how they believe she came to have the gun because if she stole it, it's a crime, if she didn't and filed a report it was stolen it's a crime so it would be prior bad acts can not be admitted. Even though she hasn't been charged I don't think they can bring that part in. jmo
They have to bring it in. And they probably don't care about a potential theft charge from another state that has no incentive to charge her.
stern·er, stern·est
1. Hard, harsh, or severe in manner or character: a stern disciplinarian. See Synonyms at severe.
2. Grim, gloomy, or forbidding in appearance or outlook.
3. Firm or unyielding; uncompromising.
4. Inexorable; relentless: stern necessity.
A stern disciplinarian...that's what came to my mind. She was disciplining Travis for not obeying her, and for denying her, imo.
And for not dying as quickly as expected.
The horror of that, really.
We'll see what happens with Jodi's expert, but I think Jodi has discredited her "battered woman" defense in so many ways that it is going to make it difficult for the expert. I think the DV expert will have to testify that "IF" what Jodi says is true, then it could cause a battered woman type response and create a distorted fear for her safety in situations that other people would not reasonably have such fears.
Exactly. It will be, I think, like the Casey Anthony trial during which an Expert testified in generalities about how people grieve. Because if they have an expert diagnose Jodi then the prosecution expert has a crack at her and they don't want that.
He has never changed his opinion of which came first. In fact he was never even asked that question by anyone until he was deposed by the defense and then he answered truthfully, imo.
IMO
That's true.
IMO too!
jodie is just like dahlia dippolito, she was caught on tape trying to hire a hit man to kill her husband, and flat out denied it never happened. ( i think she got 20 yrs) i just don't see how she can plead self defense. i don't think she has one bit of remorse for travis
Do you know she got 20 years but has been on house arrest at her mama's since she filed an appeal? Pisses me off and baffles me. Florida. Got to love it.
With the operative word being "reasonable". Wouldn't she have to retreat from causing him further harm than necessary for her to get away from him? At least that was my understanding, notwithstanding he may have tried to get the knife away from her.
:waitasec:
Right. I always think of it as like force to like force.
Right. And I just think it's pretty preposterous to think a medical examiner is going to come to his scientific conclusions based on the state's theory or the state's sentencing anticipation.
IMO, if the ME was going to be a yes man for the state, it would have been better for him to conclude that the gunshot was first because that's what the detective had been saying all along, and that is actually easier to understand. He didn't come to that conclusion, however, because it is not what he believes from his examination.
I think the ME's conclusions are based solely on his scientific evaluation of Travis' body and wounds. I still happen to think the gunshot was first because that is the only way I can get my mind around it, but I do not take issue with the ME or think he had any agenda other than to testify truthfully about his scientifici conclusions.
I agree 100%. This ME came to his conclusions based on his scientific analysis of the evidence.
But like any area of science or study, there is often/sometimes room for interpretation.
I have to admit I actually had PPL in the past BUT had no clue where it originated, etc. I actually know many people who had it. No, I am not Mormon.
It was cheap, $10 a month, and rates never went up (had it over a a 20 yr. period). It does not give you unlimited legal counsel. You called a number and told them what type of advice you were seeking...ie...real estate attorney, etc. An attorney would return your call within a certain amount of time. They then gave you legal advice on your question/subject. They might also write a letter or make phone calls for free.
You got a reduced rate on attorney representation in court or more involved cases...but had to use their attorney.
I used them to get a contractor to finish an in-ground swimming pool, to clear up several title problems on a home I bought (without a realtor), to write a letter to my now husband's ex-wife when she harrassed/threatened me and son (and it stopped her), and got a couple speeding tickets reduced, etc. This was all pre internet and they gave me advice on rental property laws, insurance advice, etc. I never paid one cent for any of these things.
They were great for small things. They always told me what they could do for free, and what the charges would be for larger things. They must have contracted with a very large law firm in the city in which I lived. It was like I had a good friend for an attorney who would give me legal advice or would write me letters, etc. for free.
I NEVER EVER considered calling them when I got a divorce (which cost me a truckload because my ex wouldn't settle). I wanted to pick my own attorney and wanted the best.
Ok...my secret is out...don't throw tomatoes...and please don't mail me any pamphlets you find at the mall!
It doesn't sound like a bad deal, frankly, for minor things. I charge a revolving retainer of $500.00 per month for the same type of thing. Meaning they have to replenish the retainer each month to 500 to have access to me for simple questions, occasional letters, etc.
Thanks. That's what I thought. Since the report was silent and the point of his testimony was dp qualification, I believe that was the reason he (somewhat equivocally) supported the stabbed first scenario. I think another expert could just as reasonably conclude that Travis was shot first. So, back to the original point, now that dp considerations are resolved, will it help the State to stick with stabbed first? I really don't think so. In fact, I think it's the major weakness in its case, if there is one.
I really don't think it's a weakness at all.
I noticed Mark Fuhrman said the same thing on FoxNews. Maybe it is due to multiple weapons being used? In other words, uncommon for a perp to start with a knife and switch to a handgun? I believe there was also some speculation the gun may have jammed after the first shot, therefore the knife became the weapon that actually killed Travis.
Personally I cannot see how the bullet casing ended up on top of the blood pool unless the gun was used AFTER Travis had been stabbed and dragged back into the shower.
:waitasec:
MOO
It jammed and later, she was able to eject it?
Its a semi-automatic. It ejects when fired. I use to have a .25 caliber.
IMO
But what if it jams?
