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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guess what is on the ID channel now Bob Bashara? BDSM
 
Minor if you are still around can you explain what the Prosecution is meaning about this mistrial motion? This is after Barth's opening statement around 1:47 on the clip second from the bottom Trial Day 1 - part 2.

TIA
 
Jewels53 said:
Guess what is on the ID channel now Bob Bashara? BDSM
Click to expand...

Hope they replay it later, I'll try and watch it.
I'm watching Heart live in concert ATM.

ETA: it replays at 11pm
 
Yep. Emma. Interesting. It sounded to me from what she wrote that the person she lost her virginity to was Tony.
 
minor4th said:
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?
Click to expand...

I believe in Kat's statement to the defense that she said Lizzi was in the harness and it was strung so that it would reduce air flow if she moved her head forward, also there was mention (although not a complete retelling, iirc) of Kat and Seth pulling on the ropes when they were both having 'relations' with Lizzi.

This may be what Barth is going to try to have his M.E. testify to, that such a contraption and positioning of Kat, along with ropes being pulled, would indeed cause the demarcation/color line at the neck and purple, swollen face. It seems since the defense is based on Kat's statement to them that's only way he can go.
 
Xara said:
Hope they replay it later, I'll try and watch it.
I'm watching Heart live in concert ATM.

ETA: it replays at 11pm
Click to expand...


Big Master Bob Bashara at 9 my time. Are you watching Heart live in concert via satellite or cable? What station? I would hate to miss that if I can catch it.
 
Sorry for the O/T but I am new and scared to talk...Master Bob I am familiar with as I followed the beginning at the Hinky Meter. This trial I already have an opinion that I haven't shared but I ♥ Heart.
 
Xara said:
Hope they replay it later, I'll try and watch it.
I'm watching Heart live in concert ATM.

ETA: it replays at 11pm
Click to expand...

WHOA! Was just talking about this on the threads earlier today! I haven't seen it yet but knew about it. Thread here on WS...darkman has been *the* poster who has kept it going over the years as Dark is local to it.

:popcorn:

THANKS!!!!!
 
geevee said:
I believe in Kat's statement to the defense that she said Lizzi was in the harness and it was strung so that it would reduce air flow if she moved her head forward, also there was mention (although not a complete retelling, iirc) of Kat and Seth pulling on the ropes when they were both having 'relations' with Lizzi.

This may be what Barth is going to try to have his M.E. testify to, that such a contraption and positioning of Kat, along with ropes being pulled, would indeed cause the demarcation/color line at the neck and purple, swollen face. It seems since the defense is based on Kat's statement to them that's only way he can go.
Click to expand...

My recollection is same.
 
Jewels53 said:
Minor if you are still around can you explain what the Prosecution is meaning about this mistrial motion? This is after Barth's opening statement around 1:47 on the clip second from the bottom Trial Day 1 - part 2.

TIA
Click to expand...


Sure.

As you know, most of Seth's statements to police were suppressed, but the judge had apparently made a ruling that the defense could refer to aspects of the interrogations if they did so "in good faith."

So in the defense opening statements, Barth plowed right over the judges ruling allowing limited references to Seth's statements by saying that Seth led investigators to where they dumped the body and that he took the blame Lizzis death to protect Kat.

Since the state cannot refute that or expand on it because the actual statements are suppressed, the prosecutor asked for a mistrial because of Barths violation and the unfair prejudice it caused the state.

Judge denied the motion but IIRC he gave a curative instruction to the jury - maybe telling them that attorney argument is not evidence and should not be considered unless there is evidence presented that corroborates the argument.

IMO This is the first of many instances of Barth playing fast and loose with the rules of evidence and court rulings.
 
geevee said:
I believe in Kat's statement to the defense that she said Lizzi was in the harness and it was strung so that it would reduce air flow if she moved her head forward, also there was mention (although not a complete retelling, iirc) of Kat and Seth pulling on the ropes when they were both having 'relations' with Lizzi.



This may be what Barth is going to try to have his M.E. testify to, that such a contraption and positioning of Kat, along with ropes being pulled, would indeed cause the demarcation/color line at the neck and purple, swollen face. It seems since the defense is based on Kat's statement to them that's only way he can go.
Click to expand...



Maybe but that is so lame.

So I guess he would argue that the harness made the furrow in Lizzis neck during consensual BDSM, and then Kat smothered her by sitting on her for more consensual "breath play" (queening) -- and that caused suffocation, which caused only one chamber of Lizzis heart to fail, which caused facial congestion.

That is so far from believable - I cannot imagine the jury would even consider it.
 
I hope the prosecutor is on the ball & is tough when he gets to cross the defence expert ME. Dr Ira Kanfer has been known previously to give controversial evidence to rebut the state case in previous trials, one being the Hockey dad trial. In another trial he had a near-meltdown under cross.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-02-04/a-parliament-of-experts/

"Dr. Ira Kanfer. Kanfer failed to bring his résumé to court – often expected of experts, as a way to boost their credibility with jurors (Martinez apparently didn't have a copy). Kanfer indeed testified that he believed Bryan could have taken a wet wad of paper towels and slowly sucked it back into his throat, ultimately choking himself.
But the doctor suffered a near-meltdown under cross-examination by Assistant District Attorney Allison Wetzel, a tough prosecutor with a quick and biting style. After making it through her questioning, Kanfer made off-the-stand comments about Wetzel and her co-counsel, Assistant D.A. Gary Cobb, including that the prosecutors could "go **** [them]selves." When Kanfer again took the witness stand, Wetzel questioned him about his statements, which he readily admitted making. "That's an exactly correct quote," he told Wetzel."
 
Here is reference to another controversial finding,.....


http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/...-08-03T19:40:18&firstName=Ira&lastName=Kanfer


"David Mills died on April 21, 2007 on a street in Hamden. Efrain Carrion died on May 24, 2010 outside his suburban Middletown apartment.
Both men’s lives ended after they were repeatedly shocked by Tasers. In both cases, Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Ira J. Kanfer, declared the cause of death to be “excited delirium,” a controversial term not recognized by major medical authorities. Kanfer is one of four associates in the Connecticut Medical Examiner’s Office"
 
Interesting that Barth chose an expert from another state and who is known for controversial opinions that are not accepted by the medical community.
 
04009margaret said:
I hope the prosecutor is on the ball & is tough when he gets to cross the defence expert ME. Dr Ira Kanfer has been known previously to give controversial evidence to rebut the state case in previous trials, one being the Hockey dad trial. In another trial he had a near-meltdown under cross.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-02-04/a-parliament-of-experts/

<snipped>
Click to expand...

Also from that article:

Although Martinez tried to rehab Kanfer in later questioning, the damage had been done. Indeed, in ruling that Jimenez should receive a new trial, Baird noted that having Kanfer testify was probably worse than having no expert at all: "To the extent Dr. Kanfer's testimony had any persuasive value (which is highly doubtful), the Court finds that it was completely and 100% undermined by [his] unprofessional conduct at trial," Baird wrote.
Click to expand...

So maybe this guy kind of is a quack?
 
minor4th said:
Interesting that Barth chose an expert from another state and who is known for controversial opinions that are not accepted by the medical community.
Click to expand...

Can't imagine this prosecution would challenge him the way Juan Martinez would with this kind of information
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 495 (members: 153, guests: 342)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
342
Total visitors
495
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,282
Messages
18,237,279
Members
234,331
Latest member
Mizz_Ledd
Back
Top