I cannot believe that the prosecution does not have a compelling explanation for everyone who heard JC say the name "Eric" despite her deep, raspy, dry, weak, thick-tongued, thermally injured voice that was barely audible to a few and inaudible to many, over a very noisy background of two nearby fire truck diesels, pump engines, sirens and other sounds of arriving vehicles, a car fire being extinguished with flames reaching to the tops of 35-ft trees, shouts of emergency responders to each other, duplicate questioners, etc.
We know that a Panola County grand jury listened to the evidence in advance of this trial, and would have certainly been made aware of such a glaring inconsistency. Yet they still voted to indict QT. Not only that, but to be sure he had a solid case, DA Champion presented it to a group of peer prosecuters, who also agreed he had a good case.
What puzzles me about Eric is this: if the DA does have an explanation for that troublesome name, then doesn't the defense have it, too, since they would be privy to any information he plans to use in his case as a result of discovery? Yet the defense continues to emphasize the inconsistency of JC's knowing QT's name, while insisting to multiple first responders that her attacker's name was something different. In the closing words of the defense's opening remarks to the jury, Eric is not on trial today, but he should be.
What does the DA know that they don't know, and why don't they know it?
Regards,
Clouseau
I think I remember reading upthread a bit that the Prosecution intends to use autopsy photos of Jessica's mouth, throat, and esophagus to show that there is no way she could have spoken or have been heard properly announcing anything.