I obviously disagree with your assessment of these professionals here. So you're stating they were hired by a federal agency to do their tests without knowing the purpose or any details, then provided a report, went to court and swore an oath merely to get media coverage, but lied????
This is actually a good point without derailing the thread. If the dog is used to her she may not have issues. I believe Chloe's problems were dog on dog and if I remember correctly, was someone injured trying to break them up? Not sure. I also seem to think she was a police dog so her training would be different than a house pet. A dog like this would set up way too many red flags for me. The dogs I walk can't have a lot of issues. If I had to take care of a dog like Chloe i would keep it to backyard visits only and a fully secured, fenced yard. I would need to do multiple visits with the owner home ahead of visits with nobody home and that would include going in the house alone.
Which means absolutely nothing in this case!
Excellent points here Universecalling. It is odd IMO the perceived bias given to certain witnesses. And yet the same old ‘credibility belief’ when it sometimes comes to the prosecution or the state CW. And yet, much of the testimony and evidence in this case by the CW frankly causes one’s jaw to hit the floor IMO. And those two defense experts were actually hired on by the FBI / federal officials / internal affairs investigation IIUC? Just wonder what the jurors now think knowing who had hired them? Maybe they just thought they were ‘hired guns by the defense’ - since their actual involvement was clouded and shielded. Perhaps that is another issue for any future motion or filing considerations? IANAL.
They work with national sport organizations on reducing the risk of injury.
They built a CANNON!!!
Sorry didn’t mean to high jack your conversation. I was just thinking about the abrasions last night and I think what puzzles me is they were mostly all in the same direction. If it was a dog attack I would expect to see them in a more downward / scattered direction. Like the upper arm ones especially. Plus they all seem consistent in depth, like scraps. If an animal got to him it would seem he was laying down and something was scratching, clawing at his arm. MOO
I’m still not convinced 8 yes meant 8 for guilty.
Yes ShadyLady!…. and would only possibly add - although not IIUC admissible in court - have them undergo a polygraph or voice stress analysis test perhaps. (While some contend the latter might be less useful.) Would also be interesting to see how many would submit to such testing. IANAL. MOO
That tail light would have had to shatter in perfect threes on each side. Kind of like claws are lined up. Or teeth. Neither can be compromised while in action. Tail light can compromise after it breaks. Therefore, making it highly improbable that it shattered in such symbiotic pattern to make those cuts. Also keep in mind, the arm didn’t stay stationary.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I can only assume you haven't been keeping up with the case over the last few days. Please check the filings by the defense, in particular Yannetti's filings from yesterday. It will have all the answers.
Have a nice day. I think we are definitely watching different Karen Read trials, so that's why we are so confused with each other.
Gordon Ramsey’s injury after being hit by a vehicle.
This wasn't part of the trial and, as far as I know, there is only one Karen Read trial.
