The balcony was only 3 high. The height of a yard stick. Rebecca had no problem at all leaning over it and then failing.
The Defense had a woman and replica of the railing ready to go to show the jury how easily Rebecca could have gone over, but Greer objected to it being used. Why would he object it it was so hard to do?
No matter what Greer says, it was easy for her to go over that railing and the 11 disturbance shows she leaned over till she fell.
Im sure the jury is wise enough to understand a woman of Rebeccas fitness level would have no problem at leaning over that 3 railing.
Ahhhh, so you were in court.
Isn't it interesting how your opinion of proceeedings differs from mine. You have completely dismissed the lack of DNA on the rail, the expected skin abrasions, and the lack of dirt transfer, all direct evidence shown in court, which made a significant impression on me personally.
You choose to focus on Greers assertions, but not the witness. But I understood what Greer says isnt evidence, as the judge repeatedly says that to the jury, so I was trying to focus on what the jury is allowed to consider after taking instruction from the Judge.
This is exactly why you cant predict what a jury is thinking, we are completely polarized in opinion on this issue. In deliberations I would probably try to persuade you take your guidance from the judge on what you can and cannot consider as evidence, and also that this is direct evidence, so much less open to interpretation IMO.
Do you not feel there is an obvious disparity when the defense argue no AS DNA indicates no presence...but in the case of the rail, a naked body scraping over the rail by a DNA shedder like RZ ...leaves no DNA...? .it just doesnt work for me in this particular scenario. We will have to agree to disagree.
Do you also recall when the defense attorney physically jumped with his feet together to demonstrate the leap on the balcony was possible for RZ too?
This was a HUGE mistake IMO. It really exemplified how ridiculous the proposition was ( you probably saw some members of the jury laugh due to the deafening thud in the courtroom after he launched himself forward!)
(On a side note I heard from chit chat in the break that a police officer actually came up to investigate from the court below as it was such a loud bang! ) I agree...before you say it...HEARSAY!
( PS for those not there to see...the judge also reminded the jury that the defense attorneys leap was not evidence...only the witness testimony..which was the experts balcony layout, the witness demonstrative and his testimony. I tried to discount it..but it was so funny I couldnt forget it!)
It was a moment of levity in an otherwise tense day in court, and an absolutely unforgettable one at that! Odd, but I beleive that attorney hasnt been in court since ( maybe he is now working for the Cirque Du Soleil?)
Finally, regarding your question re Greers objection to the defense using a random woman from the gallery to demonstrate RZs death, you should recall that the judge made it very clear why this was not appropriate ( for very obvious reasons, even to a legal novitiate like me!)
My notes read very bizarre regarding this request...
I have a question for you...the defense objected vehemently to a demonstration by Greer of the length of the rope being shown to the jury demonstrate RZs hanging height ( and distance of her feet from the ground) when being cut down...
They then even objected to a simple ruler being used to show how far her feet were from the ground...
...so why would they object to the rope hanging length demonstation so strongly? And then object again so strongly to the jury being shown how high her feet were from the ground, even with a ruler? Why was that such a big issue?
( all my opinion gleaned from my notes and experience in the court room)