Originally Posted by gracielee
What was the state's witness *wrong* about? JA testifed the ducks were present on the table in the front hall the day before nancy 'went missing' and the ducks were no longer there on the table after nancy 'went missing'. That was a true statement. The fact that all this time, the ducks were in Brad's civil lawyers office doesn't make JA's testimony 'wrong' IMO. Everyone, including all of us WS'ers, knew they were looking for the ducks. That they were in an attorney's office no less, you don't consider that to be concealing evidence in a murder trial? It would appear they took a lesson from Michael Peterson's blow poke IMO.
So now the whereabouts and theories about the ducks are insignificant to the case. That's a lot of back pedalling.
Exactly what in my statement deems the ducks insignificant? IIRC, many people think the blow-poke in the Michael Peterson case was a plant. A few people here believe one of the ducks to have been used as a murder weapon. Me, I don't suspect that, but I don't discredit it either. Everyone has their own opinions on how nancy was strangled. I do think some sort of object was used in the strangulation. Because the hyoid bone wasn't completely fractured, and there wasn't significant bruising completely around her neck. I'm of the opinion some sort of 'hold' or injury was used to render nancy immobile within seconds. Hence the lack of extreme neck bruising, defensive wounds, and lack of rope or other garrot type injuries to her neck.