I can tell that you're probably the smartest person on this board. IMO
No. I just try to put myself in the shoes of the Jury.
That Jury in Fla. was not stupid like everyone here says.
They did the right thing with the evidence they were given.
IMO
I can tell that you're probably the smartest person on this board. IMO
And here's the quote I found, "the gunshot wound could have been a fatal wound, but there is a chance that Alexander was shot in the head after he had already died, because there was a lack of hemorrhaging in the brain."
StephanieHartPI said:Defense: Ok so what your testimony is, I just want to be clear is that you never told Detective Flores that the gunshot wound was the first wound
ME: I don't believe I ever said that, no
Defense: And do you remember telling Detective Flores that you knew this because the gunshot wound would not have completely incapacitated somebody
ME: I don't recall saying that either
Defense: Is that something you think you would have never said to Detective Flores?
ME: I think I've said it here in court that I don't think it would immediately incapacitate him or kill him. But it would be a serious injury, but I don't recall telling Detective Flores that, no.
Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?
ME: I would say not immediately fatal
Defense: I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating
ME: I think...yes, it would be incapacitating, passing through his brain, so yes
Defense: So...and that's assuming it was passing through his brain, you would say it is incapacitating.
ME: I'm saying it did pass through his brain
Defense: And so. Um, so you wouldn't have told Det Flores that that wound would not have completely incapacitated someone? Right? I guess you wouldn't have said that?
ME: I don't recall saying...I don't recall having a conversation with the Detective about anything
Well, she stabbed him in his head, his chest, his upper torso, his back, lots of spitting up to do from knife wounds. Also, there was evidence that she attempted to clean up in the bathroom. She could have wiped any blood spatter from the gun away or smeared it. Also, we know she broke a glass, and there was water on the floor in the bathroom, which could mean she attempted to wash something away.
And on the contrary, the ME said that there was decay in the brain - not well preserved.
Look at the defense cross-examination. That's where the ME states the exact quote I referenced.
It is important to note that the ME states that the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating." Yes, he states it was "incapacitating." But he also states that it was not "immediately incapacitating." There is a difference between "incapacitating" and "immediately incapaciting."
If the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating," then I believe the ME has left open the possibility that TA could've been ambulatory for 1 minute and 46 seconds after suffering the gunshot wound.
Other parts of the ME's testimony support my position that the ME is not ruling out the possibility that the gunshot wound occurred first.
Also, I think it's clear from detective Flores's report that the ME did tell detective Flores at one point that the gunshot wound came first. Sure, the ME said he didn't remember telling detective Flores that. But detective Flores did remember and even wrote up what he learned from the ME in his investigative report.
I think this says it all:
"Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?
ME: I would say not immediately fatal
Defense: I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating
ME: I think...yes, it would be incapacitating, passing through his brain, so yes
Defense: So...and that's assuming it was passing through his brain, you would say it is incapacitating.
ME: I'm saying it did pass through his brain"
But let me say something about a bullet to the brain. I've had some experience with people who were shot in the brain. In one instance a man was shot in the right temple while sitting down, immediately rose and walked a few feet then collapsed, unconscious - this took seconds. In another instance a man who was shot in the forehead immediately fell to the floor unconscious.
I don't think the ME contradicted himself. I think he was clarifying himself.
'well preserved' were the ME"s words in the autopsy.
All the knife wounds were fairly superficial except for two.
Doubtful she could have washed away all of the blood spatter from the gun if he was shot in the bathroom. There is blood spatter from the impact wounds [knife] in the bathroom.
No one's told me yet how she gets that trajectory if he's lying down when shot.
IMO
This is directly from the autopsy: The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.
"decomposed" implies not well preserved.
And here's the quote I found, "the gunshot wound could have been a fatal wound, but there is a chance that Alexander was shot in the head after he had already died, because there was a lack of hemorrhaging in the brain."
No I don't think I have it backwards.
You are linking together pieces of evidence where each piece could be construed for guilt or innocence. You are supposed to always look for the innocent explanation, because we have the presumption of innocence in this country. However, as each piece adds to the next, pointing consistently to guilt, as they do here, then there becomes an overwhelming body of evidence that can only be read one way--guilty--unless the kingpin piece, the capstone, so to speak, points towards innocence. Then the whole thing crumbles.
That is why her using a knife first destroys all the circumstantial evidence that came before it pointing to premeditated murder with a gun.
Oh but it was hemorrhagic, just not in the brain. The brain was apparently uninjured with well preserved and symmetrical cerebrum and the dura mater intact. The brain slides showed no signs of trauma.
But, he bled profusely through the frontal sinus wound into his nose and mouth. We can see it in the sink and the floor in front of the sink.
IMO
There's no evidence the sinus was bleeding or wounded.
The blood filled the chest cavity and exited through the bronchus.
I just can't see how his right eye would not have been damaged with the point of entry and the tragectory of the bullet. The bullet also traveled more towards the front of his facial skeleton than towards the back, meaning even less chance of hitting the brain. It entered above the right eyebrow and moved away from the brain and thru the sinus cavity, as opposed to towards or into the brain. A facial injury. Explains why the dura mater was intact.
Superficial wound. Crashes through the frontal sinus cavity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nnh_front.svg
IMO