Looks like judge is not allowing Staub to testify about his conclusion
I think you and I are too literal and look to deeply into things. We need good proof and reasons for things.He lied Bc of drugs. She puked. ODed. He panicked.
I don't know. I'm just saying there are a lot of reasons why people lie. I need to know she was actually in that trunk. Not just that she may have puked in that trunk. I mean, I do believe she was, but I want to everyone to see she was. Make sense?
Does it really matter for an AK case? Her DNA was in two spots in the back of his trunk and on the trunk lining. I would think that would be enough since he's not facing a murder charge?
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.This is where I am, Heather. For whatever reason, I'm thinking that if she was in the trunk for an extended period of time, there would be more/stronger DNA evidence there, whether it is blood or saliva.
However, with puke, I go with maybe she puked in his car, he had a towel, blanket or whatever that he cleaned up with, then threw it in the back of the car after he let her out or took her to HF or whomever HF texted to pick her up.
NOTE: Not that I think that's what happened. Just going down the list of things that might be presented by the defense to the jury when all is said and done. I still think they find him guilty. I just think all of us were expecting the DNA evidence to be stronger...
...either that or EA has a really good defense team that is good at mucking up the works! That's entirely possible. And, in the end, that's their job.
On thing is for sure, if he is convicted, it can't be overturned on the common assertion that his attorneys didn't provide a vigorous enough defense. Seems to me that they are certainly giving a vigorous defense...which, in my opinion, will make an appeal less likely to succeed.
What possible bases has prosecution not covered that the defense just let go by? None that I can see, so far. This would be an excellent case for young attorneys or law students hoping to go into criminal defense or prosecution to observe.
JMHO Det is not an EXPERT and was going to use someone elses "journal work" that's what I got from it. And he is not from an accredited lab. Det at PPD.
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Quote Originally Posted by Quailfoot View Post
This is where I am, Heather. For whatever reason, I'm thinking that if she was in the trunk for an extended period of time, there would be more/stronger DNA evidence there, whether it is blood or saliva.
However, with puke, I go with maybe she puked in his car, he had a towel, blanket or whatever that he cleaned up with, then threw it in the back of the car after he let her out or took her to HF or whomever HF texted to pick her up.
NOTE: Not that I think that's what happened. Just going down the list of things that might be presented by the defense to the jury when all is said and done. I still think they find him guilty. I just think all of us were expecting the DNA evidence to be stronger...
...either that or EA has a really good defense team that is good at mucking up the works! That's entirely possible. And, in the end, that's their job.
On thing is for sure, if he is convicted, it can't be overturned on the common assertion that his attorneys didn't provide a vigorous enough defense. Seems to me that they are certainly giving a vigorous defense...which, in my opinion, will make an appeal less likely to succeed.
What possible bases has prosecution not covered that the defense just let go by? None that I can see, so far. This would be an excellent case for young attorneys or law students hoping to go into criminal defense or prosecution to observe.
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk