Another thing I've noticed while reading the transcripts and watching old interviews is that Hart's lawyer, Garvin Isaacs, often misrepresents the truth when it comes to various facts in the case. I'm guessing this is a deliberate tactic to confuse jurors and the public.
Here's an example:
In Volume 7 of the pre-trial testimony, Isaacs starts off the day by making a lot of statements about circumstantial evidencde, etc. and moves to have the judge dismiss the case against Hart.
In making his argument and rebuttal, he keeps saying that the suspect's hair in evidence was located in the victim's tent. The prosecuting attorney argues back that the 3 hairs matched to Hart were found both in the tent where MG and LF were and also stuck to the tape that was used to bind DM.
But Isaacs continues to mention the hair only as one and only found in the tent. So far, he's repeated this two or three times. He also states the hair evidence wasn't a match, but it was matched to Hart. Each time he says it, he's corrected, but he repeats it again.
I also noticed in a follow up interview with Isaac years later, he misrepresents other facts about the case.
[video=youtube;74wzoxJ_vxM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wzoxJ_vxM[/video]
At 8:09, Isaacs says the military style boot print was size 9.5. But Weaver and others testified the boot print was between size 10 and 11. I've seen Isaacs repeat this false information a number of times in interviews.
He was one tricky guy, I guess that's what makes him a good defense attorney. This may also be why erroneous stuff remains out there about this case.
Here's an example:
In Volume 7 of the pre-trial testimony, Isaacs starts off the day by making a lot of statements about circumstantial evidencde, etc. and moves to have the judge dismiss the case against Hart.
In making his argument and rebuttal, he keeps saying that the suspect's hair in evidence was located in the victim's tent. The prosecuting attorney argues back that the 3 hairs matched to Hart were found both in the tent where MG and LF were and also stuck to the tape that was used to bind DM.
But Isaacs continues to mention the hair only as one and only found in the tent. So far, he's repeated this two or three times. He also states the hair evidence wasn't a match, but it was matched to Hart. Each time he says it, he's corrected, but he repeats it again.
I also noticed in a follow up interview with Isaac years later, he misrepresents other facts about the case.
[video=youtube;74wzoxJ_vxM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wzoxJ_vxM[/video]
At 8:09, Isaacs says the military style boot print was size 9.5. But Weaver and others testified the boot print was between size 10 and 11. I've seen Isaacs repeat this false information a number of times in interviews.
He was one tricky guy, I guess that's what makes him a good defense attorney. This may also be why erroneous stuff remains out there about this case.