NH NH - Elizabeth Marriott, 19, Durham, 9 Oct 2012 - # 9 *S. Mazzaglia guilty*

[geevee]

*BBM*
To play devils advocate :dervish:...

When I listened to RG's testimony I got the impression the line was just a delineation of where LM's coloring changed.
She described the body as pale and the neck up as purple.

I am not saying there was NOT a marking, just saying when I personally listened to RG talk about the "line" it gave me a visual of color change, not an actual mark on the neck.
That is what got me thinking about the bag being used to suffocate.

Now I lean back more towards the rope, but just wanted to point out how other versions can stick in the mind (and may stick in the jurys minds also :sigh

There was also a point very early in the trial where prosecution told the judge that one of the witnesses (if he named which, I can't recall) was going to testify that they had seen a furrow on Lizzi's neck but that they (the prosecution) had not turned this information over to the defense, I can't recall what the judge's ruling on that was but don't recall any of the eyewitnesses (KM, RG or PH) saying they saw such so possibly the judge ruled in defense's favor that it could not be asked about or stated by witness. Wish my memory were pristine (it used to be lol) but I'm sure it's in one of the early video archives.

 

[turaj]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140619/GJNEWS_01/140619159/-1/fosnews010116

Good article. Seth's Mom will testify.

It just says she is on the witness list...so was the ex girlfriend for the prosecution but we have not seen her.I guess I am not sure at all what his mother could bring to this case (other than shirts!)

 

[turaj]

Do I have it correct that basically the defense in the case they will present just needs to raise reasonable doubt about who actually killed Lizzie? And they are putting forth the story that Kat sat on her? So then key to their case would be some "expert" that will say what everyone saw on her dead body ie marks etc. could have just as easily been caused by this causing suffocation rather than the strangulation. Based on Barth's opening which frankly I watched finally and did not appreciate anything about it I think this "sitting" story is really far fetched and most jurors will reject it.

 

[HauntsForHope]

Are you familiar with the Jane/Bob Bashara case here at WS? You ain't heard nuthin' until that trial starts imho. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180306

Last I heard, that trial starts October 6th. That case, will make sex in this case and Jodi's sex phone calls *cough cough* look pedestrian. Sex dungeon owned by bob, bdsm, master/2 gal slaves/murder for hire/another murder for hire....well, it's made for tv (oh yeah, dateline has already done that/been there)

ETA: Corrected in that dateline was the one to air the case - part 1 is here http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/52280218

<<-- requires adobe flash plug in which won't work on macs? There perhaps is another source on youtube - title is "Secrets in the Suburbs" and here is summary http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/06/grosse_pointe_parks_bob_bashar_1.html

FWIW

Thanks ! Just watched it, looking forward to the trail

 

[HauntsForHope]

Do I have it correct that basically the defense in the case they will present just needs to raise reasonable doubt about who actually killed Lizzie? And they are putting forth the story that Kat sat on her? So then key to their case would be some "expert" that will say what everyone saw on her dead body ie marks etc. could have just as easily been caused by this causing suffocation rather than the strangulation. Based on Barth's opening which frankly I watched finally and did not appreciate anything about it I think this "sitting" story is really far fetched and most jurors will reject it.

Yes, Barth questioned the medical examiner on that and she clearly stated the marks and coloration, etc were NOT from suffocation. The clear delineation of color change from the neck up is not possible from suffocation. There has to be something around the neck to cut off the blood flow to the head in order for that coloration to happen.

But, yea, he mentioned someone else was going to testify about that.

 

[turaj]

Yes, Barth questioned the medical examiner on that and she clearly stated the marks and coloration, etc were NOT from suffocation. The clear delineation of color change from the neck up is not possible from suffocation. There has to be something around the neck to cut off the blood flow to the head in order for that coloration to happen.

But, yea, he mentioned someone else was going to testify about that.

He will sure need a very strong expert as the Dr. for the state was pretty convincing..plus just logic (not the bs variety favored by Kat) would say with all the confirmed sex involving ropes etc. that it seems likely that would be the cause of death.

 

[Jewels53]

He will sure need a very strong expert as the Dr. for the state was pretty convincing..plus just logic (not the bs variety favored by Kat) would say with all the confirmed sex involving ropes etc. that it seems likely that would be the cause of death.

When I listened to Barth's opening statements this morning, he said he will have an ME from Connecticut. I wonder how long they have been in practice?

 

[turaj]

I wonder if the state will "come alive" with their cross...up to now been pretty unexciting. Often though they really change on cross.

 

[minor4th]

When I listened to Barth's opening statements this morning, he said he will have an ME from Connecticut. I wonder how long they have been in practice?

Its apparently a deputy medical examiner for the state, so I doubt he will be a quack. However, I think his testimony is just going to be that its possible for smothering to cause a certain kind of heart dysfunction that could cause facial congestion and/or redness.

While that may be possible (as in all things are possible), its not enough to rebut Duvals testimony about the sharp delineation in color from the neck up and the ligature mark seen by Kat, Paul and as admitted by Seth to his cellies.

IOW Barths expert testimony will be rejected in favor of Duvals. IMO

 

[minor4th]

Do I have it correct that basically the defense in the case they will present just needs to raise reasonable doubt about who actually killed Lizzie? And they are putting forth the story that Kat sat on her? So then key to their case would be some "expert" that will say what everyone saw on her dead body ie marks etc. could have just as easily been caused by this causing suffocation rather than the strangulation. Based on Barth's opening which frankly I watched finally and did not appreciate anything about it I think this "sitting" story is really far fetched and most jurors will reject it.

You have it right. Defense just needs to raise reasonable doubt, but they have locked themselves into the theory that Lizzi died of suffocation from Kat sitting on her. I think Barths theory is not possible based on the medical testimony based on eyewitness observations.

So why would the defense rely on a theory that is clearly implausible and cannot be true? Because Seth really did strangle Lizzi to death on purpose. Otherwise, why not aver that Seth choked Lizzi during consensual sex and her death was not intended?

 

[minor4th]

There was also a point very early in the trial where prosecution told the judge that one of the witnesses (if he named which, I can't recall) was going to testify that they had seen a furrow on Lizzi's neck but that they (the prosecution) had not turned this information over to the defense, I can't recall what the judge's ruling on that was but don't recall any of the eyewitnesses (KM, RG or PH) saying they saw such so possibly the judge ruled in defense's favor that it could not be asked about or stated by witness. Wish my memory were pristine (it used to be lol) but I'm sure it's in one of the early video archives.

Paul essentially testified to there being a furrow, but he assumed it was caused by the bags being tied tightly around Lizzis neck - of course, at the time, he had no idea that she had been strangled.

 

[Skigirl]

I wonder if the state will "come alive" with their cross...up to now been pretty unexciting. Often though they really change on cross.

I appreciate sane, calm, straightforward, reasonable approach taken by the state.

 

[minor4th]

I appreciate sane, calm, straightforward, reasonable approach taken by the state.

I do too. When you have good evidence, you don't need to engage in theatrics or trickery. But we'll see if that changes on cross examination of defense witnesses.

 

[Skigirl]

I'm pretty sure this is one of KM's blogs because pyratekitty is her twitter handle (http://www.experienceproject.com/about/pyratekitty). One of her posts talks about how she "hates" her dad. I wonder if this is what the questions about eating disorders and abuse came from:

[modsnip]

 

[minor4th]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140612/GJNEWS_01/140619729/-1/fosnews010116



Another good one re KM's testimony and how she was perceived by some of the spectators.

From this article, Seth plead guilty to the conspiracy charges, which I assume includes the witness tampering. I did not realize those charges had already been resolved. I don't believe he has been sentenced for those though.

 

[Skigirl]

I think this is hers, too... lots of things about marriage in October-December 2012: http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/PyrateKITTY

 

[noor]

From this article, Seth plead guilty to the conspiracy charges, which I assume includes the witness tampering. I did not realize those charges had already been resolved. I don't believe he has been sentenced for those though.

Before the defense started their opening statements, Seth plead guilty to those charges.
I've never seen anything like that before.
The judge swore him in, asked him if his defense attorney was allowed in is opening statement to admit to those charges.

So, he plead guilty.
So that means the jury does not have to deliberate those charges....correct?

tia.

 

[Skigirl]

Before the defense started their opening statements, Seth plead guilty to those charges.
I've never seen anything like that before.
The judge swore him in, asked him if his defense attorney was allowed in is opening statement to admit to those charges.

So, he plead guilty.
So that means the jury does not have to deliberate those charges....correct?

tia.

Maybe the defense was hoping that if the jury didn't spend a lot of time talking about witness tampering, it would lessen the impact of the crazy scheming against and with the witnesses?

 

[minor4th]

Before the defense started their opening statements, Seth plead guilty to those charges.

I've never seen anything like that before.

The judge swore him in, asked him if his defense attorney was allowed in is opening statement to admit to those charges.



So, he plead guilty.

So that means the jury does not have to deliberate those charges....correct?



tia.

Right, but they might still sentence him. Not sure if NH is a state that allows jury to determine sentence or if it is just done by the judge.

 

[minor4th]

I'm pretty sure this is one of KM's blogs because pyratekitty is her twitter handle (http://www.experienceproject.com/about/pyratekitty). One of her posts talks about how she "hates" her dad. I wonder if this is what the questions about eating disorders and abuse came from:

[modsnip]

That's got to be her, and I bet that is exactly where the defense got some of that info.